My Hypothesis—ziggy

  1. underage drinking
  2. Minimum drinking ages aren’t effective
  3. Minimum drinking ages don’t stop underage drinking
  4. Teens find ways to drink underage
  5. Teens still find ways to drink underage even with the minimum drinking age.
  6. All minimum drinking ages do is make it more difficult for teens to drink, it does not completely discourage them.

This entry was posted in My Hypothesis, ziggy026. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to My Hypothesis—ziggy

  1. davidbdale says:

    My first impression is that your hypothesis doesn’t need to be proved, ziggy. No rule or law ever completely directs behavior. That failure to curb all unwanted activity doesn’t render the rules useless, though. I don’t know from what you’ve provided here whether that’s the next step in your argument or not. But if that’s NOT it, then what is? Will you be seeking alternatives to a mandated age restriction? Has your initial research guided you TOWARD a remedy, or are you just feeling helpless that anything can dissuade youth from experimenting with alcohol? An example of a hypothesis that would require proof or evidence would be:
    Lowering the minimum drinking age from 21 to 18 would in no way increase youthful drinking.
    I’m not recommending it, just providing a model of a Proposal Statement that can be proved or disproved with evidence. Yours is already apparent and does not require any proof at all. Does that help?

    You may revise or not revise your Hypothesis here, ziggy, but I do expect you to respond, to demonstrate your respect for the feedback process. Thanks!

    Like

  2. ziggy026 says:

    I’m so sorry, I just saw this now. I understand now the flaws with my hypothesis. Would, the legal drinking age does nothing but make it harder for those who are underage to purchase alcohol rather than prohibit them from obtaining it completely, work better?

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      Your Test Hypothesis at the White Paper is a good start, ziggy. It’s refreshing to hear a law described as “not intended to actually prohibit the behavior it outlaws” or something of that nature. I wonder if you can find 3000 words worth of argument on that theme. Very likely a large percentage of laws aim higher than their intended target. It’s an intriguing angle. Is that your intention?

      Like

      • ziggy026 says:

        I expanded a bit on it in the white paper. I’m mainly going for the argument that the law is disguised as something it’s not.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s