Question: Rankin and Quane show a surprising finding of high levels of engagement among people in poorer neighborhoods. This seems to contradict Putnam’s argument on the erosions of social capital. Does the “surprising” finding by Rankin and Quane show the limits of previous research, such as Putnam’s, on social isolation? In your response to the question using all the readings, you may consider discussing aspects (economic, class, and/or racial) of the loss of social connection that Putnam is overlooking. Also, what different social factors might be influencing more or less impoverished people? In your argument, be sure to define social capital and explain its relevance to “civic engagement and social connectedness.” In addition, define and employ key terms that seem to be central to the arguments of your sources and, therefore, to your argument as well. Primary among these key terms is “social capital.” Other key terms that might help you with your argument are: social capital; human capital; social isolation; social trust; and discussion networks. Please in the introduction paragraph have a thesis Please answer all questions and please use quotes from the readings all three readings this is the link for the reading — http://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/academic_support_services/ug_studies/portsect1.pdf and here is the Password: Oct#15P
