Third Chunk AKA chapters 5 & 6

In chapter 5, Levitt tries to figure out what makes a perfect parent. He explains that no book can teach a person how to be a parent. He claims that there are many statistics that a parent does not know that could be very helpful when it comes to letting their child play with who. He gives an example in which the child can play in either a friend's house with a pool or at a friend's house where there is a gun. He states that the hypothetical character's parents made a smart decision in protecting their child by letting her play at the friend with a pool than at a friend with a gun. He then gives his statistics "In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.)" Later on, he claims that a child's genetics accounts for the child's behavior and such, but later he states that parents can make a difference in such a way that it seems that he does not really answer the question unless you ignore everything except the fact that parents should know more statistics or just keep an eye on their child themselves.

In chapter 6, Levitt attempts an answer to Would a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet? - or basically Does the child's name have anything to do with the their future. Simply put, the answer is no. Levitt mentions of a situation where a man names one child winner and another loser. Winner becomes a loser and Loser becomes successful. He then goes on about "blackest" names and "whitest" names, but in the end he claims that genetics and other factors in the person's background determine their chance for success.

Tone : serious

Rhetorical Strategies : Appeal to logic through statistics and some humour.

Questions : Since people's names don't determine their ability to succeed, then why do people categorize by name?
With no real unrisky paranting situation, how can a parent protect their child while not allowing the child to become too dependent?