No, there shouldn't be a test to vote
< (2 of 2)
Tests aren’t always accurate so there should not be a test to vote
Tests are used to test people’s knowledge and skill. But they are also under scrutiny. People wonder if it’s fair to use standardized testing because it’s a fixed system. If there were tests for voting, how accurate would they be?
< (2 of 3) Next argument >
Tests aren’t always accurate. Standardized tests are a good example of this. Standardized tests measure everyone’s intelligence as a whole and makes an average. This means that if a student isn’t up to par with the average, they get a lower grade on the test but in reality, they only need to improve a little. It would be unfair if someone failed a voting test because their score was below average.
Although tests aren't always accurate, they could still be effective. The goal of a voting test is to make people realize how important voting is. For example, a computer's firewall can be broken into. But it would take much more effort to break into a strong firewall than a weak firewall. It’s better to have a test than no test at all.
[P1] Voting tests aren’t always accurate. [P2] Anyone could pass the test.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] Although anyone could pass the test, it could limit the amount of non-competent voters.