In 2018, China removed presidential term limits.  This was a controversial move, with some people enthusiastically supporting it while others passionately opposed it. On the AP exam, you may be asked to read and analyze an editorial about a controversial political event.  This assignment will give you practice in this type of analysis.  You also will be asked to construct and support your own arguments in some of the free response questions.  This assignment will also give you practice in this type of writing. **Part I:**  Read each of the two editorials (from the Hindu and from the World Post).  For each article, identify the author’s claims, evidence, and analysis.  What is the main argument made by the author, how was it supported with evidence, and how does this reflect the author’s views on the bigger issue of the rise of Xi in China?  Are the author’s claims and evidence reliable?  Why or why not?  Analyze each argument in a one-page response. **Part 2:**  After reading both editorials, write your own one-page editorial in which you state  your own claim and support your argument using evidence from  your research and study of China.  Be sure to use logical reasoning and provide evidence to support your opinion. Part 1: The Hindu Editorial- The author is claiming that the reduction of the term limit will be not the best for China. The article cites the term limit as a limit to his stint in power. it also brings up some of Xi's predecessors stepping down as concerning, because it could risk China sliding back into the days of "personality cults, internal power struggles and possibly chaotic successions." The author seems not behind the whole rise of Xi and his power. Judging by how they ended the article, it sounds like they believe it will bring back some past issues in China that caused great contention. They brought up some good evidence, but because it's just one argument, it isn't wise to completely trust it. The Washington Post- The author claims that Xi lifting the term limits is a good thing. The author is a Shanghai venture capitalist, and knows a lot more about China and it's government that the author of the Hindu Editorial article knows. A big piece of evidence that the author brings up is how the general secretary never had term limits, and how fusing the power between the two will help give the government greater strength because it will join together the party and the state. The author appears to support Xi's rise, and sees it as good for the nation. I would say he does have some credibility as he knows the past of China and how this would effect for the future, but he also has close ties to China which could cause him to be more biased. MY CLAIM: Xi lifting term limits is a good thing. One reason for this is brought up in the Washington Post article. Removing term limits will liken the president more unto the general secretary, which would cause for greater collaboration among the two, causing a fusion of state and the Communist party, which is a huge presence in China. Removal of the term limit would also allow for the time and energy to be put into important policies that the president is seeking to add. Although China is classified as an authoritarian state, and the release of restrictions on the extent of the power of the president could increase the restrictions on the liberties of the citizens, the president isn't the sole person in power. They have people to help govern alongside them. Again, it would help unite the general secretary and the president. it would be a unification because the general secretary stays put while the president cycles in and out. Keeping a president in there would allow for the two to work together in a more productive and effect way.