The Three Main Arguments Of Divorce
The author of this passage argues that divorce in some circumstances is acceptable, despite being Catholic. A part of the Catholic belief is that marriage is worth saving, one should only be married once in a lifetime. The author believes that divorce is not always bad. The main argument of divorce being acceptable in some situations is backed up by three arguments. The reasoning behind each individual argument are: abuse, differences that can’t be reconciled, and elements relating to kids. The sub argument about kids also branches out into other reasonings.
Sentence (1) is where the author introduces their religious background, which does not play a major role in the argument. The main argument is revealed in sentence (3) “divorce is not always bad.” The premise added with some personal experience is found in sentence (2) where the author states that they are pragmatic, and has had some friends go through divorces, where the stipulation was acceptable. Sentence (3), …show more content…
the main argument, is followed up by a strong claim in sentence (18), “There are circumstances where the benefits of divorce exceed its cost.” The macro structure of the argument is simply the two sentences shown in the diagram.
Next off is the micro structure of the argument, which is broken into three arguments and reasonings. The first argument would be sentence (10), “when the couples don’t even talk to each other anymore or can’t stand each other anymore perhaps to the point of only wanting to hurt each other’s feelings, divorce seems to be the best strategy.” The premise from sentence (9) supports sentence (10) stating that, “then there is the irreparable difference, unresolved by marriage counseling.” Some existing problems just cannot be resolved in marriages, and are better off left alone then trying to possibly repair or damage the relationship even more. Together, sentence (9) and (10) create one of three arguments which connects to sentence (18), which supports the main argument of sentence (3). The diagram explains the relation for one of the arguments.
The second argument of the three comes from sentence (6), “in many cases, however, it is probably safer for the abused spouse to just leave.” Abuse in marriages, physically or emotionally, is a good enough reason to take action for a divorce according to the author.
“Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing.” (7) The author even goes into mentioning that divorces can save lives for those in toxic relationships. A combination of thoughts 7 and 8 make the complete thought that is the argument. “Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing (7). It might even save one’s life,” (8). Sentence (6) in conjunction with sentence (10), combine two complete thoughts/reasonings that makeup claims that support sentence (18), which is the main supporter of the main argument of sentence (3), which is “divorce is not always bad.” Divorce isn’t a bad thing when abuse or insolvable differences are brought into the picture. The diagram below shows about half of the microstructure that is the argument that divorce is not always
bad.
The final situation in which divorce is acceptable by the author is when there is a kid involved. “I remain, however, a little bit skeptical, especially considering the possible short- and long-term emotional and social effects on children when their parents can’t stand each other anymore.” (14) Assuming that most children at the end of the day want to see their parents happy, the author supports his situation and statement with sentence (16), “ And don’t children thrive well when their parents are happy even when separated. Emphasizing that happiness is what children want for their loved ones, whether they are married together, or have a healthy divorced relationship. The author inserted another supportive sentence with (14), to strengthen their claim even more, making this claim the strongest and most emotional. “Isn’t it the children’s right, too, to experience that their parents are happy individuals unrestrained by their marital statuses (15)?” This situation for siding with divorce is the strongest because it pulls in two more supportive clauses that favor the argument. The diagram below maps up the complete argument, with sentence (18) and (3) being the main macro structure, while the rest, (6,10,14,15,16) compiles as the micro structure to support the general and main argument of (3).
Now that the structure of the argument has been identified, the language can be discussed. In sentence (2), the author begins to explain their argument, stating they believe in divorces if necessary, while being a catholic. The author widens their vocabulary in sentence (2) by stating they are “pragmatic” when telling their friends to go through divorces. Pragmatic means, “dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.” Thinking with the heart and emotions, rather than with the brain and logic. Sentences (1-3) is the introduction which is pretty vague, just stating that divorce is okay in some situations, but then the rest of the passage is breaking down the reasons on why the introduction is a solid argument. The main conclusion in (3) is directly supported by the sub conclusion (18), and both statements are fairly basic, the vocabulary isn’t too high, the message is easily visible. The language in the premises (6,10,14) are also straightforward. There is some bias that can be seen by the author, mostly in the section involving children. The author makes a very strong case in (14) which is backed up by (15,16). However it is based primarily on assumption, since the statement is that children are happy if their parents are happy, married or divorced. This is not always the case because, some children are affected negatively when their parents separate, sometimes so heart broken they never recover. Although the author makes a very strong case for the premise (14) and is backed up by common knowledge in (15, 16) it still is not always the case.
The premises make sense for all the major points within the structure of the argument. With the exception of a minor fallacy in sentences (15,16) that show bias, everything else is well written. Premises (6,10,14) all relate to the central argument, and support it very well. The three situations that divorce is acceptable to the author are well described and have supported evidence to make the premises legitimate. All the information presented in the diagram is relevant to the argument and sub arguments, and is essential and sufficient to make how the argument flowed through the diagram. The strength of the argument comes from well thought out reasons for divorce, (6,10,14) with exceptional support, evidence, and examples. The weakness also comes from the examples because there is some bias present that goes back to the beginning of being catholic. The author states a solution to their own argument at the end of the passage, which in a way is also a weakness in, “There are circumstances where the benefits of divorce exceed its cost (18). This is, however, not an excuse to make divorce as the feasible exit strategy when things go awry in a marriage (19). There are ways to resolve dilemmas or problems in any marriage (20). It only takes courage, patience, and perseverance, and the desire to save the marriage (21).”
Sentence (1) is where the author introduces their religious background, which does not play a major role in the argument. The main argument is revealed in sentence (3) “divorce is not always bad.” The premise added with some personal experience is found in sentence (2) where the author states that they are pragmatic, and has had some friends go through divorces, where the stipulation was acceptable. Sentence (3), …show more content…
the main argument, is followed up by a strong claim in sentence (18), “There are circumstances where the benefits of divorce exceed its cost.” The macro structure of the argument is simply the two sentences shown in the diagram.
Next off is the micro structure of the argument, which is broken into three arguments and reasonings. The first argument would be sentence (10), “when the couples don’t even talk to each other anymore or can’t stand each other anymore perhaps to the point of only wanting to hurt each other’s feelings, divorce seems to be the best strategy.” The premise from sentence (9) supports sentence (10) stating that, “then there is the irreparable difference, unresolved by marriage counseling.” Some existing problems just cannot be resolved in marriages, and are better off left alone then trying to possibly repair or damage the relationship even more. Together, sentence (9) and (10) create one of three arguments which connects to sentence (18), which supports the main argument of sentence (3). The diagram explains the relation for one of the arguments.
The second argument of the three comes from sentence (6), “in many cases, however, it is probably safer for the abused spouse to just leave.” Abuse in marriages, physically or emotionally, is a good enough reason to take action for a divorce according to the author.
“Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing.” (7) The author even goes into mentioning that divorces can save lives for those in toxic relationships. A combination of thoughts 7 and 8 make the complete thought that is the argument. “Here, divorce isn’t such a bad thing (7). It might even save one’s life,” (8). Sentence (6) in conjunction with sentence (10), combine two complete thoughts/reasonings that makeup claims that support sentence (18), which is the main supporter of the main argument of sentence (3), which is “divorce is not always bad.” Divorce isn’t a bad thing when abuse or insolvable differences are brought into the picture. The diagram below shows about half of the microstructure that is the argument that divorce is not always
bad.
The final situation in which divorce is acceptable by the author is when there is a kid involved. “I remain, however, a little bit skeptical, especially considering the possible short- and long-term emotional and social effects on children when their parents can’t stand each other anymore.” (14) Assuming that most children at the end of the day want to see their parents happy, the author supports his situation and statement with sentence (16), “ And don’t children thrive well when their parents are happy even when separated. Emphasizing that happiness is what children want for their loved ones, whether they are married together, or have a healthy divorced relationship. The author inserted another supportive sentence with (14), to strengthen their claim even more, making this claim the strongest and most emotional. “Isn’t it the children’s right, too, to experience that their parents are happy individuals unrestrained by their marital statuses (15)?” This situation for siding with divorce is the strongest because it pulls in two more supportive clauses that favor the argument. The diagram below maps up the complete argument, with sentence (18) and (3) being the main macro structure, while the rest, (6,10,14,15,16) compiles as the micro structure to support the general and main argument of (3).
Now that the structure of the argument has been identified, the language can be discussed. In sentence (2), the author begins to explain their argument, stating they believe in divorces if necessary, while being a catholic. The author widens their vocabulary in sentence (2) by stating they are “pragmatic” when telling their friends to go through divorces. Pragmatic means, “dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.” Thinking with the heart and emotions, rather than with the brain and logic. Sentences (1-3) is the introduction which is pretty vague, just stating that divorce is okay in some situations, but then the rest of the passage is breaking down the reasons on why the introduction is a solid argument. The main conclusion in (3) is directly supported by the sub conclusion (18), and both statements are fairly basic, the vocabulary isn’t too high, the message is easily visible. The language in the premises (6,10,14) are also straightforward. There is some bias that can be seen by the author, mostly in the section involving children. The author makes a very strong case in (14) which is backed up by (15,16). However it is based primarily on assumption, since the statement is that children are happy if their parents are happy, married or divorced. This is not always the case because, some children are affected negatively when their parents separate, sometimes so heart broken they never recover. Although the author makes a very strong case for the premise (14) and is backed up by common knowledge in (15, 16) it still is not always the case.
The premises make sense for all the major points within the structure of the argument. With the exception of a minor fallacy in sentences (15,16) that show bias, everything else is well written. Premises (6,10,14) all relate to the central argument, and support it very well. The three situations that divorce is acceptable to the author are well described and have supported evidence to make the premises legitimate. All the information presented in the diagram is relevant to the argument and sub arguments, and is essential and sufficient to make how the argument flowed through the diagram. The strength of the argument comes from well thought out reasons for divorce, (6,10,14) with exceptional support, evidence, and examples. The weakness also comes from the examples because there is some bias present that goes back to the beginning of being catholic. The author states a solution to their own argument at the end of the passage, which in a way is also a weakness in, “There are circumstances where the benefits of divorce exceed its cost (18). This is, however, not an excuse to make divorce as the feasible exit strategy when things go awry in a marriage (19). There are ways to resolve dilemmas or problems in any marriage (20). It only takes courage, patience, and perseverance, and the desire to save the marriage (21).”