Read the excerpt from "a quilt of a country."

what is the point of this splintered whole? what is the point of a nation in which arab cabbies chauffeur jewish passengers through the streets of new york—and in which jewish cabbies chauffeur arab passengers, too, and yet speak in theory of hatred, one for the other? what is the point of a nation in which one part seems to be always on the verge of fisticuffs with another, blacks and whites, gays and straights, left and right, pole and chinese and puerto rican and slovenian? other countries with such divisions have in fact divided into new nations with new names, but not this one, impossibly interwoven even in its hostilities.

once these disparate parts were held together by a common enemy, by the fault lines of world wars and the electrified fence of communism. with the end of the cold war there was the creeping concern that without a focus for hatred and distrust, a sense of national identity would evaporate, that the left side of the hyphen—african-american, mexican-american, irish-american—would overwhelm the right. and slow-growing domestic traumas like economic unrest and increasing crime seemed more likely to emphasize division than community. today the citizens of the united states have come together once more because of armed conflict and enemy attack. terrorism has led to devastation—and unity.

which statement best traces the development of a central idea from one paragraph to the next?

idk that a good answer

explanation:

"character is what you are in the dark." dwight lyman moody, in this very witty quotation of his, states we act and think differently when we are "in the dark", that is, when the spotlight is not on us and everyone can see us and consequently judge us. when reading, we tend to be sympathetic to some characters and their dilemmas. by being so, we are saying to ourselves that we agree with those characters' acts and choices, even if they are morally questionable if we have common sense in mind. dwight lyman moody's quotation applies very well to "crime and punishment", by   19th century russian writer fiodor dostoyevsky. raskolnikov, the main character, a former law student who spends his days reflecting upon life and its misery, draws a fatal conclusion: mankind is divided in two main categories: ordinary and extraordinary people. the first are the ones who lead a run-of-the-mill existence and are full of imperfections; the latter are the ones who are spiritually superior, the ones who always know better, and have the right to judge the ordinary ones, as well as eliminate them if for common good. raskolnikov considers himself as belonging to the extraordinary category and decides to kill an old lady who is a money lender and in whose house he rents a small room. raskolnikov compares himself to napoleon, who had the undeniable right to execute tons of people during the war in order to save his nation. of course what the main character decides to do is a horrendous crime, but as readers we feel it is the right thing for him to do, since the victim is a mean old woman who only thinks about money and keeps humiliating her younger sister. what one experiences is a mixture of sympathy and empathy for the character, even though he decides to commit homicide, which is not at all accepted or tolerated by civilized citizens. however, since readers are "in the dark", they allow themselves to feel in ways they would probably never dare to confess to anyone, no matter how nasty or vicious a character can be. after all, they are just reading and doing no harm. in other words, readers are in the dark and can be who they are without being judged.