Principal issue is that divorce harms the children. There is no bias because the author is a research psychologist and gets her facts from the issues dealt with.
There are no vague areas because everything is fact and she provides supporting details to back up topics. It was very credible because the author has a degree in this and researches it for a living. The rhetorical device talks about effects on children which makes reader emotional.( Article reported in “For better or for worse”) There are no fallacies because she has the facts to back everything up.
Argument: Whether or not divorce really harms children
Premise: Society believes that any child from a divorced family will not function normally like others.
Conclusion: three fourths of children of divorce do function normally.
Author’s argument is valid because he or she has a degree in this area and deals with it everyday and includes facts and statistics to support. There is moral reasoning because author is a psychiatrist and has to apply moral reasoning in advice.
Argument: SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE POOR
The principal issue is if parents are divorced and only one is raising the child they will be more likely to be poor. There is no bias because author includes facts from many credible sources. The author is neither vague or ambiguous because everything is explained well and supported by facts. Yes it is credible because includes many facts to support argument. The rhetorical device is the paragraph where it describes effects on children-this is kind of a scare tactic on parents who are thinking of divorce. There are no fallacies because everything is backed up with supporting facts and details.