<em>What opposing viewpoint does Quindlen respond to in paragraph 3? </em>
In this paragraph, Quindlen complains about the fact that some people argue that the unity of our country has recently been damaged by a constant pride in ethnicity and background. She disagrees with this point of view, and thinks that people who hold it do not look at American history in the way that they should.
<em>What counterargument does she offer to it?</em>
Instead, Quindlen argues that this sense of unity has never existed in the way these people claim. She thinks that we are just as divided as we were in the past. Neighbourhoods have always been segregated and people have always been pride and defensive of their ethnicity. She thinks that denying this is romanticizing the past.
<em>List the reasons and evidence she includes in her counterargument and evaluate if it is relevant and sufficient.</em>
She offers several reasons and evidence to support this point of view. She talks about how Jewish children in Philadelphia used to avoid Irish areas. She also talks about how controversial the marriage between her Italian mother and her Irish father was. She also gives several examples of romanticized neighbourhoods and shows that these were racial ghettos. Finally, she asks us to compare the relationship between Mexicans and Cambodians in California today and that of Italians and Irish in Massachussetts a century ago and realize the differences are small. This is relevant and sufficient evidence which successfully proves her point.
