On a Saturday morning in 1930, you are reading a newspaper and having brunch at a local cafe. You come across an op-ed criticizing eugenics. The author insists that social reform and improvement of living conditions are both more humane and effective than eugenics. You disagree. You have read many eugenic studies and you know the ideas and arguments presented by Cesare Lombroso, Henry Goddard, Charles Davenport, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and so on about heredity and eugenics. Please write a letter to the editor rebutting the op-ed. You must substantiate your points with select examples. (The examples do not have to be limited to the ones mentioned above.) You must take a stance. You can be an advocate of positive eugenics, negative eugenics, or both. Please note, too, that the year is 1930. You do not know what will happen after that year. Compose your essay as would an educated – presumably well-meaning, but arguably misguided – intellectual in 1930. Make your letter as solid, coherent, and persuasive as possible.