Rossi: It is undemocratic for people to live under a government in which their interests are not represented. So children should have the right to vote, since sometimes the from those of their parents.
Smith: Granted, children’s interests are not always the same as their parents’; governmental deficits incurred by their parents’ generation will later affect their own generation’s standard of living. But even if children are told about the issues affecting them, which is not generally the case, their conceptions of what can or should those of adults, so we cannot give them the responsibility of voting.
What this question is testing
Rossi's argument
Rossi opens with a sweeping rule: it's undemocratic for people to be governed without representation. Then Rossi applies that rule to children, arguing they should have the right to vote because their interests sometimes differ from their parents'.
Evaluate
This is a Method-of-argument question: how does Rossi's argument work? The structure is "general principle, then application." Rossi doesn't evaluate consequences, doesn't attack Smith's motives, doesn't shift definitions of a term — Rossi just appeals to a general democratic principle and shows it applies to children.
Goal
The answer that says: Rossi appeals to a general principle.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.