Just Whom Is This Divorce ‘Good For?’ by Elizabeth Marquardt, Research Paper Example

In this article, Marquardt explores the effects of divorce on children, subsequently arguing that divorce is not necessarily good for those involved. The author cites research to show that children of divorce often experience negative outcomes. Key among these negative outcomes include academic difficulties, behavioral and emotional problems, and lower levels of psychological well-being, among other shortcomings (Marquardt). Marquardt also argues that despite the common belief that divorce can be a positive experience for the parents, it can also lead to negative consequences, such as decreased financial stability and increased levels of stress and conflict. Marquardt successfully employs different rhetorical strategies to support her position that divorce negatively affects all the parties involved and therefore is not ‘good’ for anyone.

Marquardt seeks to dispute the commonly held notion that divorce is a solution to marriage problems and can benefit all parties involved. The author reckons that while divorce may end a troubled marriage, it often has far-reaching and adverse effects on the children involved (Marquardt). The research cited in the article indicates that children are more likely to experience a range of adverse outcomes once their parents divorce. The most severe outcomes include emotional and behavioral challenges, academic problems, and lowered levels of psychological well-being. According to Marquardt, these negative effects can be long-lasting, often following children into adulthood.

The author believes divorce is not always a positive experience for the parents involved. She reckons that despite the belief that divorce can bring about a newfound sense of freedom and liberation, it can also lead to decreased financial stability and increased levels of stress and conflict. These aspects subsequently result in a decline in the parties’ overall well-being. In connection to this, Marquardt emphasizes that these negative consequences are not limited to one parent or the other but can affect both equally. Based on the issues highlighted above, the author challenges the notion that divorce is a ‘good’ solution to problems in a marriage (Marquardt). She, therefore, calls for a reconsideration of how modern couples view and approach divorce, instead asking them to consider the long-term effects of divorce on their children and their well-being.

Marquardt employs various rhetorical strategies in challenging the idea that divorce is the solution to marital problems, and it is thus ‘good.’ The article’s opening question is not only powerful but also thought-provoking. By asking her audience, “Just whom is this divorce ‘good for’?” she immediately captures the reader’s attention (Marquardt). The question sets the tone for the rest of the article. Likewise, using the term “whom” instead of “who” emphasizes the author’s focus on the impact of divorce on specific individuals rather than society as a whole. The question also invites the reader to consider the consequences of divorce and to question the assumption that it is inherently a ‘good’ thing.

Throughout the article, Marquardt cites research articles to support her argument that divorce is not always a positive experience for the parties involved. The use of research adds credibility to the author’s argument and provides a solid foundation for her claims. For example, the author cites studies showing that children experience a range of adverse outcomes once their parents’ marriage collapses. In addition, the author cites various scientific studies showing that divorce can negatively affect parents (Marquardt). Using research provides the reader with concrete evidence to support the author’s argument and reinforces the idea that divorce is not a one-size-fits-all solution to marital problems. Marquardt also employs ethos by demonstrating her expertise and commitment to a fair and balanced analysis. In particular, she cites her experience as a researcher and writer on divorce and family life. This adds credibility to her argument and establishes her as an authority on the subject.

The author employs emotive language throughout the article to make her argument more personal and impactful. Using words like “painful” and “heartbreaking” to describe the effects of divorce on children powerfully highlights the negative consequences of divorce (Marquardt). It also underscores the importance of considering these consequences before deciding to divorce. The author also uses phrases like “freedom and liberation” to describe the belief that divorce can be a positive experience for the parents. This use of emotive language effectively challenges this belief by highlighting the negative consequences that can come with divorce. It also demonstrates the author’s grasp of pathos. Marquardt employs logos by presenting the research and statistics that support her argument (Marquardt). This use of logos appeals to the reader’s sense of logic and reason and helps to strengthen the author’s argument.

Further, Marquardt uses several rhetorical devices to accentuate her points and make her argument more memorable. For example, the author repeats the opening phrase several times throughout the article. This repetition reinforces the article’s central argument and underscores the negative consequences of divorce. The author also uses parallelism to highlight the common belief that divorce is a positive solution to marital problems while contrasting this with the reality of the negative consequences that can result from divorce (Marquardt). This use of parallelism effectively stresses the author’s argument and helps to drive home the point that divorce is not always a ‘good’ thing.

The author closes the article with a call to action, encouraging readers to reconsider the way they view and approach divorce. In these last remarks, Marquardt maintains that divorce has far-reaching and often negative consequences for children and parents and that couples should consider these consequences before deciding to divorce (Marquardt). She concludes by asking readers to open their eyes and see the pain that divorce inflicts on children and how it can harm them. This concluding remark effectively summarizes the author’s position that divorce is not a ‘good’ thing as many would want to believe.

Marquardt effectively uses various rhetorical strategies to challenge the commonly held belief that divorce is a solution to marriage problems and can benefit all parties involved. Through research and emotive language, the author argues that divorce has far-reaching and often negative consequences for children and parents. The author argues that divorce is not a one-size-fits-all solution to marital problems and that couples should consider the negative consequences before divorcing. The author concludes by calling for a reconsideration of the way divorce is viewed and approached and emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the pain that divorce can inflict on children and the harm it can cause to parents. Ultimately, Marquardt not only expertly uses different rhetorical strategies to drive her point home but also does so in a manner that is relatable to the readers.

Works Cited

Marquardt, Elizabeth. “Just Whom Is This Divorce ‘Good’ For?” Washington Post,  https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2005/11/06/just-whom-is-this-divorce-good-for/32da3ae3-b15e-491f-a897-96b62a23fe57/. Accessed 7 Feb 2023.