I am interested in this research question because binge drinking and alcohol poisoning affect many students on college campuses across America. Presidents of colleges and students both want to see change happen, and they have a right to see it. Kids are throwing up and dying from alcohol poisoning due to the social pressures of a college campus and the lifestyle it encompasses. This affects me, my friends, and other students I live around. There is a constant stream of people in and out of dorms, on weekends especially, that are drunk and loud. These kids bother and wake up other students, hindering their ability to be in the best shape possible for school. Off campus, students are bothering residents and putting everyone in danger. These drunk kids don't know how to control themselves with that much alcohol; they have not learned nor have supervision during such events. My position is that I want to see the legal drinking age lowered because I think it will help in this epidemic. Eighteen year olds would not have to feel like alcohol is a forbidden fruit and binge drink because they think this is possibly the last time they will see it. Also, they can be under supervision of adults and policeman since they would not have to run and hide. I saw what was happening around me and started asking questions, and so with lots of reading and research, I have become equipped and qualified to write about lowering the drinking age. 

"Vermont Considers Lowering Drinking Age to 18" is an article, by Pam Belluck, in which she discusses reasons why Vermont is considering changing their state laws to allow 18 year olds to drink. She has compelling evidence for both sides of the argument, yet not really having a central claim. She takes account that 18 year olds can do almost everything, including smoking cigarettes, and also that before the age was raised, kids did not get sick with alcohol poisoning or binge drinking. On the other hand, if 18 year olds were allowed to drink, alcohol could be more available to kids in high school that are just under 18. Belluck's main point is that the argument is going to keep spinning in circle unless the government lets go of the National Drinking Age Act, which requires states to have the age at 21 or no money for highways. This article was provided by LexisNexis, which is another reliable source founded by the University of South Carolina's library database.

Chuck Crumbo's article "Lower Drinking age for Military?" is his personal take on why soldiers should be allowed to consume alcohol. His main claim is that people should be able to drink if you are old enough to fight. Crumbo's evidence includes the legal drinking age in Japan, which is 18, and how things are not out of control. Furthermore, he reveals that Marines may drink at certain functions and that it's a soldier's intention to be responsible. Lastly, he quotes many soldiers and government representatives to further his claim. What is at stake for this article is that if South Carolina, or any other state, were to lower the legal drinking age, they would lose money in highway funds. This is because of the National Drinking Age Act mentioned in the previous article. Crumbo is trying to explain that even though the state might lose money, it is not fair how a soldier can lose his life for America but cannot buy a drink in America. The author seems to be reliable as he is published on NewsBank, a reliable source from the University of South Carolina's library database. NewsBank does not provide any background on Crumbo, just a phone number. However, Crumbo's evidence shows that he is one-sided. 

Joseph S. Stroud and his article "New Law to Curb Teen Drunken Driving Drivers with .02 Alcohol in Blood Will Lose License," is against lowering the drinking age to 18. Stroud's main claim is that the legislation, which requires anyone under 21 with .02 alcohol level to get their license provoked, is the best thing to happen to prevent drunk teenagers from driving. His evidence includes many statistics that compare underage drinking and car wrecks. He also provides quotes from experts and noteworthy people that support his main claim. Stroud's major interest for this article is to gain support from the audience and to publish reasons why this legislation will be great further down the road. Stroud is a Staff Writer for America's News which makes him out to be credible and his work trustworthy. He is biased towards his argument because he is for one side and does not include a counterargument. 

My question, "Will lowering the legal drinking age to 18 help colleges with their problems of alcohol poisoning and binge drinking?" is arguable because some people believe that campuses should deal with the situation and perhaps provide harsher punishments instead of looking at a grander solution. Among all my sources, they all agree that nothing will be done to change the age limit unless the government stop forcing states to keep it at 21 or no money for highway funds. Two of the articles, however, agree that the age should be lowered whereas one of them is against it. The two that are for my view, lowering the legal drinking age, has strength my opinion. The one that is against it, has made me look at the cons of lowering it and made me not be so frustrated with them. I might revise my research question to look at why these problems on college campuses are always pushed aside.

