1.”Cults” by definition are “social groups defined by either religion, spiritualaity, or even philisophical practices”. In opinion, the author Arthur M. Schlesinger employs the word “cult” specifically to stress how the United States has been succesful in harvesting many different ethnic groups, while most other countries in the world are facing chaos due to the diverse ethnic groups. I believe the author’s underlying meaning of the word cult, is that people of different “ethinic groups” are trying to almost normalize or gain respect from there same diverse origions. meaning, searching for acceptence of their practices in a sense. Thus, changing the tone of the essay of an informative to pursuasive one in the direction on acceptence of diversification.2.The first two paragraphs are a basic introduction. first one being, that according to history people with different values, beliefs, and characteristics have become fine with moving to different countries or regions in order to live there lives and even practice the ideologies and etc. paragraph #2 stresses that having a “melting pot” or too many people of diverse cultures or ethnic groups cannot be sustainable and wont benefit the country, region on the long run. Hence, many problems can occur due to the mixing of these practices in one geographical area, which in reality we face many problems of today, even in America. The author divides the paragraph because one is clearly stating history and what has become somewhat normal, then he proceeds to present the problems that may arise due to the result of whats happening in today’s world.3.The Author stresses on the fact that many problems are arising due to the relocation of people of different “ethnicity” and also talks about the importance of education being aware of surrounding peoples views and ethnicity. However, as much as he argues education as a pro, he also explains that it could have a huge negative impact. Education can poison the young and vulnerable especially. Arthur mentions the teachings and practices of the KKK which were against anyone that wasn’t white, especially the African Americans. Although this is maybe considered old news, racism indeed still exists. The author does not give a clear solution to the existing problem but on the other hand he signifies the importance of America continuing on working be open and uniting all Americans as a whole, he goes on to say that America has always been in the right path especially compared to existing nations, and countries.4. Arthur M. Schlesinger overly emphasizes on historic examples as well as historic leaders and what they would preach. He refers to multiple US presidents, nations, and leaders. I believe that the comparison was limited. Limited in the sense that most US leaders he refers to mostly preached and practiced the unification and acceptance of the different ethnic groups. However when talking about European nations and countries, positions were mostly one sided and not as friendly when it came to the idea of diversity.The author employs the technique of introducing these historic figures in order to reinforce his argument when saying America has an advantage over other nations, he stresses the fact in order to point out the differences in peace in the US rather than other nations, and capitalizes on the measures of democracy being the key factor of holding everyone together. With the freedoms that exist in the US and the long standing democracy the government practices and enforces on its people has shown to have a positive effect on the Americans, therefore attracting even more people from different ethnic backgrounds to continue migrating as well as practicing freedom in the US. 5. In paragraph 11, Arthur M. Schlesinger is being more sarcastic rather than directly writing the point hes trying to get across. Arthur uses quotations not to literally quote his work, rather to expose that they reasons and “what it seems to be” isn’t really what it is. The author achieves coherence in the practice of using sarcasm as a way of speech. He lists the importance of education by leaders to rather be doing the opposite of what its really supposed to mean. Meaning, instead of teaching peace between people of different backgrounds its doing the exact opposite, shinning the light on the differences and why people are so different. Hence, making the educated take a stand against those of difference and instead of preaching peace, the message received is realistically “hate”. The assumption of the audience’s understanding is that they should know that they have been brainwashed into thinking that just because someone believes in a different religion, morals, or values, that they should not treat those people with equality and the same manner they would like to be treated.