When a north american answers the question "who am i? " by citing individual factors while an asian person answers the same question by identifying groups in which she/he is a member, they are expressing value differences associated

It's individualism vs. collectivism  

Explanation Exemplified by the two distinct replies in the example.

This question is missing the options. I've found the complete question online. It is as follows:

When a North American answers the question "Who am I?" by citing individual factors while an Asian person answers the same question by identifying groups in which she/he is a member, they are expressing value differences associated with.

a. high versus low context

b. individualism versus collectivism

c. power distance

d. uncertainty avoidance

They are expressing values associated with b. individualism versus collectivism.

Explanation:

It has been noticed by several sociological studies that Western societies tend to be more individualistic, while Asian societies tend to worry about the collectivity. When individualism prevails, society is more concerned with the rights, goals, and even flaws of the individuals. When asked about who they are, people in such societies tend to answer about themselves as detached from groups. On the other hand, in collectivist societies, people tend to think of themselves as part of groups. They are taught to act in the way that is most beneficial for all, instead of worrying only about themselves and their own goals.

explanation:

the goblins and dwarves have different perspectives of things. bilbo is a hobbit and goblins dwarves and hobbits all believe and do a different way of living

the sentence that avoid faulty coordination is:

culture, which is well represented in philadelphia, plays a major role including theatre, music, and the visual arts.  

faulty coordination occurs when the writer gives equal importance two different ideas (clauses) which in fact are not equivalent. in order to correct a misplaced clause or idea, the writer can place less important or emphatic ideas in a relative clause as in the previous sentence.