A thorough and deep study of Quindlen’s article develops many ideas for the reader. Firstly, the reader may question the absence of condom and other facilities for sexually active people. Secondly, the reader may question the criticisms against sex education and communication between parents and children about sex related issues. The article under consideration uses questioning to develop claims, for instance “is it Pyrrhic?” or “Don’t you just love those little mother-daughter sex talks?” Although these questions are not answered directly in the article, the claims behind them are discussed. Moreover, Quindlen provides many instances and facts about the claims she make and leaves it on the reader to decide on the situation. Quindlen criticizes government’s plans and campaigns cleverly without even taking the responsibility of doing so. The arguments in favour of this article written by Quindlen include the succinctness and interesting facts involved. The article is not boring and wordy. It involves important information and facts with wise use of criticism. The article does not repeat the same facts or ideas to make it lengthy or look professional. The professionalism of this article lies in its conciseness and excellent use of examples, questions, direct quotes and accounts of incidents. Sarcasm, hidden in sweetened words, makes the article more interesting. For example the author questions in the article like “And you put the ads on late at night? Do we really want to talk with our kids?
Or do we just want to talk about talking to them?” The answer to these questions is already given in the paragraph where Quindlen criticizes ABC’s policies. This article simply is written with creative thoughts and writing techniques. The arguments against this article may be the lack of background information about certain facts. For instance, the article does not provide any information about the ‘no-condom list’. Where did it come from? Who made/makes such lists? Where can we find them? Etc. Many such questions remain unanswered and the reader stays uninformed about them. Hence, the information or claims related to such lists remain useless for the reader. Quindlen discussed one side of the picture throughout the article. A successful article, however, must incorporate both sides of the issue. For instance, simply asserting how technology is ruining our economy and reporting the incidents where technology affected people badly does not let the reader decide if technology is useful or harmful for us. Similarly, Quindlen just asserts how people against sex education are wrong and supports the claims by various incidents and examples. The assertions made are based on a strong assumption that there is no truth in the claims of people opposing them. The important claim of this article is about sex education. The author’s views about sex education are affirmative as observed after reading it. Sex education should be provided to youngsters at an early age. Sex-education is beneficial and many researchers have provided evidences to support this claim. The author emphasizes on a crucial issue that Educational institutions can play a vital role in developing awareness about parent child relationship and the far reaching effects of open discussions between them. Children learn and adopt habits from their parents. Being their first teachers parents may help developing the understanding of sex on their minds either in a positive or