Question

english language empowerment act of 1996 by u.s. congresswoman patsy t. mink (d - hi) in this excerpt from a speech given to a senate committee, congresswoman patsy mink presents her reasons as to why congress should not approve the proposed bill, which sought to declare english as the official language of the united states government. (1) mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to speak against s. 356, which seeks to declare english as the official language of the united states government. (2) according to the u.s. census bureau, 97 percent of americans currently speak english \well\ or \very well.\ even among those immigrants who come to this country speaking other languages, most passionately desire to be proficient in english--for their own economic survival and to secure economic opportunity for their children. today’s immigrants are learning english faster than previous generations of immigrants; english classes are in such high demand that some stay open 24 hours a day, and statistics show that waiting lists are as long as 40 to 50 thousand. if this is so, why do we need a law to declare english to be our official language? it already is! (3) so maybe the reason for this bill is to save printing select the correct answer from the drop - down menu. how does the author introduce her point in paragraph 3? the author introduces her point in paragraph 3 by explaining a perspective that has not been considered showing how one official language will not serve all americans providing concise data as evidence for her claim addressing an argument made by those who disagree

Explanation:

To determine how the author introduces her point in paragraph 3, we analyze the content. Paragraph 3 (the third numbered paragraph: "So maybe the reason...") addresses the argument of those who support the bill (declaring English as official) by questioning the need for the bill when English is already widely used and immigrants are learning it. This matches the option "addressing an argument made by those who disagree" (as the author is countering the pro - bill argument). The other options don't fit: there's no new unconsidered perspective, no data provision, and no showing the official language won't serve all.

Answer:

addressing an argument made by those who disagree