Passage Is It Time for Term Limits?
Is It Time for Term Limits?
In 1799, when George Washington’s supporters asked him to consider serving a third term as president of the United States, he declared, “Prudence on my part must arrest any attempt at the well meant, but mistaken views of my friends, to introduce me again into the Chair of Government.” Even though some of his contemporaries advocated for a lifetime appointment for presidents, Washington thought that government officials should not seek to gain unfair power. Only one president has been elected to four terms: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was elected to a third term in 1940 and a fourth in 1944 due to the challenges of the Great Depression and World War II. This departure from the rule worried some, and on March 21, 1947, Congress passed the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, legally limiting the office of president to two four-year terms.
Presidential terms are clearly limited in the Constitution, but for people serving in Congress, this is not the case. Currently, members of the House of Representatives, who serve two-year terms, and Senators, who serve six-year terms, can run for reelection an unlimited number of times. Because of the possibility of unlimited reelections, many people are beginning to believe that limiting congressional terms would benefit our government. Modern surveys conducted by multiple firms consistently show that American citizens of a variety of backgrounds and political leanings approve of the idea of setting term limits for members of Congress.
American citizens are not the only supporters of term limits for Congress. Even some members of Congress themselves have spoken out in support of this change. Former Senator Joe Lieberman, upon his retirement, suggested that Congress “might be healthier and less partisan1 and less rigid if it turned over more often, and term limits are one way to do that.” Michael Olson and Jon Rogowski state in their article “Legislative Term Limits and Polarization” that “proponents of term limits argue that limiting the number of terms legislators can serve in office would reduce the level of partisan conflict, encourage compromise and cooperation, and improve the quality of representation.”
Experienced politicians certainly can build on years of knowledge, but term limit supporters point out that career politicians may base key decisions on their own personal long-term goals. In the article “Term Limitations and the Myth of the Citizen-Legislator,” author Elizabeth Garrett states that “under term limits, a careerist needs to move up the political opportunity structure to remain in elected office, but the probability of unimpeded upward movement decreases as the number of available positions that are perceived as advancements decline.”
While challenging the career politician’s path is seen as a benefit to term limit supporters, there is a possibility that a Congress mostly composed of newcomers could severely affect policy making. Experienced politicians have a deep knowledge of congressional processes, and in addition, politicians who have served together for extended periods have a chance to develop trusting relationships, even across party lines. Molly Reynolds, a congressional expert for the Brookings Institution, says that members who are restricted by term limits “have neither the time nor the incentive to develop the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs. If members don’t have that expertise themselves, they’re more likely to rely on outsiders, including lobbyists, to replace that expertise.”
In fact, first-time politicians’ susceptibilities to lobbyists, or groups seeking to influence legislators, have actually been put to the test on the state level. In 2006, the National Conference of State Legislatures Study revealed that term limits may increase the influence of lobbyists. In the 1990s, more than twenty states implemented term limits within their state governments. The inexperienced state lawmakers began depending on special-interest groups for their expertise on issues. In the end, many people believed that implementing term limits in the state legislature caused problems, and since then, six states have repealed the limits.
Additionally, those who oppose term limits maintain that the turnover rate in Congress is sufficient. Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, notes that every decade, new members replace at least half the members of the House and the Senate, due to retirement or elections. Still, the average length of time in office has mushroomed. For example, the 65th Congress (1917–1919) had an average service time of 5.3 years for members of the House of Representatives and 5.7 years for Senate members. The 114th Congress (2015–2017) had an average of 8.8 years for members of the House and 9.7 years for senators.
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment to institute congressional term limits? Perhaps one day people will have a chance to vote on the issue.
PERCENTAGE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS REELECTED
| House of Representatives Total seats: 435 | Year | Percentage Reelected |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 83.2 | |
| 1978 | 82.3 | |
| 1998 | 90.8 | |
| 2016 | 87.4 |
| Senate Total seats: 100 | Year | Percentage Reelected |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 68.8 | |
| 1978 | 60.0 | |
| 1998 | 89.7 | |
| 2016 | 93.1 |
1partisan: showing a strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular political party
Question
Read this sentence from paragraph 5.
While challenging the career politician’s path is seen as a benefit to term limit supporters, there is a possibility that a Congress mostly composed of newcomers could severely affect policy making.
Which statement best describes how the sentence fits into the overall structure of the passage?
- AIt provides evidence for the idea that term limits are controversial.
- BIt summarizes the consequences of having term limits.
- CIt begins to explore the effects of instituting term limits.
- DIt shifts from the arguments for to the arguments against term limits.
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks which statement best describes how the sentence in paragraph 5 fits into the overall structure of the passage.
A. Incorrect. While the sentence in paragraph 5 does imply that term limits are controversial, it merely begins to suggest one of the reasons for the controversy without offering actual evidence.
B. Incorrect. The sentence in paragraph 5 does not offer ideas complete enough to constitute a summary of the consequences of term limits.
C. Incorrect. Before paragraph 5, the passage explores possible effects of term limits on the ability of Congress to function.
D. CORRECT. The author uses the sentence in paragraph 5 to demonstrate a transition from the benefits of term limits to the idea that newcomers could have a severe effect on policies.
Question analysis
This text-structure question quotes the opening sentence of paragraph 5 in “Is It Time for Term Limits?” and asks how it fits the overall structure of the passage. The options name four different jobs a sentence might do, from offering evidence to summing up, so students must judge the sentence by its position in the argument, not only by its words.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Seeing how one sentence fits the plan of an informational text is regular grade 7 work. The sentence itself is clear, but placing it means keeping in mind the outline of an 800-word passage dense with political terms, still typical grade 7 demand.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- How, not what moderate
- Evidence in several places minor
- Complex sentences minor
- Evidence
- Answered from the whole text
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 799 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 92 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The sentence is easy to understand on its own, but its role shows only against the outline of the whole passage, which argues for term limits through paragraph 4 and against them from here on. Students who have lost that outline see a sentence that mentions an effect and decide the effects begin here, or see both sides named and call it evidence of controversy. Labeling each paragraph for or against before reading the choices makes the turn obvious.
How, not what moderate Working it out
The question asks what the sentence does at its place in the passage, and its “While” clause holds the answer: it closes the supporters’ case of paragraphs 2–4 and opens the risks of a Congress of newcomers. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
Rejecting the idea that effects are first raised here means recalling paragraphs 3 and 4, where Lieberman, Olson and Rogowski, and Garrett already describe what term limits would do. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Complex sentences minor Understanding the question
The 31-word sentence opens with a “While” clause whose subject is itself a phrase, “challenging the career politician’s path,” and saves its main point, a risk to policy making, for the second half. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)
Strategy: Label each paragraph in a word or two, then describe in your own words what this sentence does at its point in the passage before looking at the options.
Traps
- Wrong purpose or structure: Names a purpose, structure or effect that the part does not serve, or describes what a part says when the question asks what it does.
The wrong answers, classified
A Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Senses from “seen as a benefit” and “severely affect” that term limits are disputed, which is fair, but the sentence states two views without offering evidence for either.
B Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Takes the mention of a benefit and a danger as a wrap-up, though the sentence opens paragraph 5 in mid-passage and introduces new points instead of gathering earlier ones.
C Wrong purpose or structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Notices that the sentence raises a possible effect on policy making, but paragraphs 3 and 4 have already discussed effects such as less partisanship, so the exploration does not begin here.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks how one sentence fits the structure of the passage. Structure is the way the parts are put in order. So first sort the passage into its parts. Then see where this sentence falls and what it does there.
Sort the passage into parts
- Paragraph 1: the history of the president’s two-term limit.
- Paragraphs 2–4: reasons for term limits in Congress. People support them, Lieberman backs them, and career politicians may chase their own goals.
- Paragraphs 5–7: reasons against. Newcomers lack know-how, state lawmakers leaned on special-interest groups, and there is already enough change.
- Paragraph 8: an open question.
Look closely at the sentence
The sentence opens paragraph 5. Its first half, “While challenging the career politician’s path is seen as a benefit to term limit supporters,” looks back at the case for limits. Its second half raises a danger: a Congress of newcomers “could severely affect policy making.” The word while joins the two halves. So the sentence turns from one side to the other.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. The sentence shows two views, but it gives no evidence. The evidence, such as Reynolds’s words, comes after it.
- B does not fit. A summary sums up what came before. This sentence opens new points in the middle of the passage.
- C does not fit. The passage has already looked at effects. Paragraph 3 says limits could make Congress “less partisan,” and paragraph 4 discusses career politicians.
- D fits. It moves from the case for limits to the case against them.
Choose the answer
Watch out: C is tempting because the sentence does name an effect on policy making. But it is not the first effect the passage mentions, so it doesn’t begin anything. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong answer. The sentence does raise an effect of term limits. But effects came up before it, such as Lieberman’s healthier, “less partisan” Congress in paragraph 3. What is new here is the side. Before this sentence, the passage argues for limits. After it, the passage argues against them. That turn is D.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Is It Time for Term Limits?” as printed (pages 90–91)
