Chapter 28. DISAGREEMENT      Introduction   Basics   Advanced   Samples   Activities --- Student Sample of a Disagreement --- Introduction The sample below is a paper by a student.  It is an example of "A" level undergraduate writing .  To get a better idea of how this type of paper is written, you will want to look at all the samples.  Then compare the samples to each other and to what the "Basics" part of this chapter says.     The authors of all sample student papers in this Web site have given their permission in writing to have their work included in WritingforCollege.org.  All samples remain copyrighted by their original authors.  Other than showing it on this website, none should be used without the explicit permission of the author. Unless otherwise noted, sample papers do not necessarily meet all requirements an individual instructor or professional supervisor may have: ask your instructor or supervisor.  In addition, the samples single spaced to save room; however, a proper manuscript given to an instructor or supervisor normally should be double spaced with margins set at or close to 1" unless another format has been requested.    Sample One: Disagreement Using Research SPECIAL NOTES: This paper uses MLA style, but no bibliography was added because there is only one source and it is mentioned in the introduction.  Many students, if they disagree with the point of view in this sample, tend to consider this essay one of the best in this textbook.  This sample also is labeled to show its parts as follows:  required parts in the introduction and conclusion are labeled in brackets and in bold, topic sentences are underlined, required transitions in the body are in bold, and other required features in the body also are in bold (in this paper, two quotations per body section). You may disregard this labeling unless otherwise directed by your instructor. --- University of Minnesota Eng 1011, Honors College Composition Disagreement © 2000 by Karen Mountain Divorce Not Harmful to Children by Karen Mountain Introduction According to [authors] Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, authors of the [essay title] article "Divorce Harms Children" in [book title] Family in America: Opposing Viewpoints, [authors' main arg.] today’s children are very traumatized by divorce. Furthermore, based on a study that Wallerstein and Blakeslee facilitated, they found that [required quote] "for virtually all the children [of divorce], it exerts powerful and wholly unanticipated effects . . ." (109). However, others argued that it is not the divorce itself that impacts children’s emotional health but rather the unstable family situation. In fact, [my response] when handled appropriately, divorce has proven to initiate positive responses among adult children of divorce. Thus this [type of paper] response paper challenges Wallerstein and Blakeslee. Summary of "Divorce Harms Children" Wallerstein and Blakeslee argue that divorce is detrimental to the development of children involved. They conducted a study that tracked 60 families and their 131 children for ten to fifty years after the divorce. After the completion of this experiment, they found several striking results. For instance, they found that children living with both biological parents had between 1/3 and 1/2 as many incidents of emotional and behavioral problems. Older women who had been children of divorce seemed to suffer from delayed feelings of a fear of commitment—called the sleeper effect. Children of divorce were often overburdened and suffered severely from this added stress. Boys of divorced families often had fewer goals and a limited education when compared to boys of a similar age who had been living with both biological parents. Thus according to Wallerstein and Blakeslee, it is easy to see that today’s children are feeling less protected. The authors claim that because divorce is so traumatizing, it is society’s duty to create better relationships and stronger families. Behavioral and Emotional Problems First, Wallerstein and Blakeslee present a graph that fails to portray the emotional standing of these before the divorce. Their graph addresses the percent of children between the ages of 3 and 17 who have had emotional and/or behavioral problems. The graph shows that 25% of children living with their biological mother and their stepfather suffer from severe behavioral and emotional problems. Similarly, approximately 20% of children who live only with their biological mother suffered from the same problems. By displaying this graph, Wallerstein and Blakeslee attempt to prove that children who have not experienced divorce are not exposed to such trauma. The graph shows that a mere 7% of children living with both biological parents have comparable problems. However, when looking closely at what this graph actually represents, it could be said that the graph does little to defend the writers’ stance that "divorce is traumatic for the developing child" (108). The graph fails to portray the sort of emotional problems these same children were experiencing prior to the divorce. For example, in "Divorce May Not Harm Children" found in Family in America: Opposing Viewpoints, Diane Fassel points out that "in a large number of stories, the divorce was far preferable to staying together through years of dysfunction" (116). In this statement, Fassel suggests that divorce itself is a neutral act, and a poor family situation is what causes distress. While the emotional and behavioral problems that children of divorce tend to face admittedly is very real, this does not prove that the divorce itself causes the pain. Rather, the unstable family environment promotes such complications. The Sleeper Effect Another issue to address is the so called "Sleeper Effect" which Wallerstein and Blakeslee naively claim makes women suffer from a fear of commitment due to their parents’ divorce (111). In actuality, children of divorce often develop much stronger relationships than do children raised by both biological parents. On the other hand, the authors found that 66% of women between the ages of 19 and 23 experienced the sleeper effect (Wallerstein and Blakeslee 111). According to the authors, this sleeper effect affects women when they are beginning to form opinions regarding commitment, love, and sex in an adult context. These young women tend to fear commitment and are "in awe of people who stay together" (111). This response by women may be very real and very common. However, Wallerstein and Blakeslee seem to have inappropriately placed the blame for it on divorce. It is quite possible that divorce does not cause the sleeper effect, but rather that the poor marriage itself contributes to the condition. In fact, there is evidence that indicates adult children of divorce often possess much healthier relationships than those children who are raised in a traditional healthy family. According to Fassel, this may be due in children of divorce to their increased awareness of relationships and the problems that can occur within them (119). Says Fassel, "[T]he experience of divorce, an experience that most of us would wish to avoid, is one of the processes that best equip us to be healthier in our relationships in the future." Thus it is clear that Wallerstein and Blakeslee fail to consider the positive aspects of divorce, especially when divorce is an option to living in a dysfunctional family. The Overburdened Child Next, Wallerstein and Blakeslee address the overburdened child by assuming falsely his/her added responsibility must be a negative side effect. Rather, it can be argued that this added responsibility actually helps the overall health of a child of divorce. As Wallerstein and Blakeslee characterize it, many divorced parents "leaned heavily on their children" (111). The authors argue through the entire paper that divorce causes childhood trauma. Yet in speaking of the overburdened child, they add, "[T]he divorce itself may not be solely to blame but, rather, may aggravate emotional difficulties that had been masked in the marriage." Here, even the authors contradict their main thesis in their own essay. It is undoubtedly true that children of divorce often feel the added weight of their parents’ mistakes. With the single parent being forced to work, children often take over the role of housekeeper. They take on the responsibility of cooking and cleaning and laundry and sometimes even carry some of the financial burden. According to Fassel, because children of divorce learn greater responsibility in the household, they gain a strong sense of independence and resilience. She says that "they began working at an early age, and they realized they had to take responsibility" (116). This understanding of personal responsibility is an important character trait to develop and is one that most children of divorce learn at an early age. Therefore, while the added burden may not always be an enjoyable experience, when handled correctly it can have a positive affect. What about boys Wallerstein and Blakeslee also argue incorrectly that divorce harms the emotional security of children. They say that due to divorce, boys have "no set goals, a limited education and a sense of having little control over their lives" (112). The authors also address feelings of rejection after a divorce and, by introducing this topic, try to prove that divorce itself causes those feelings. If handled in a positive manner, a divorce will not induce such responses and can, in fact, be healthier for children than living in a dysfunctional family situation. Studies have suggested that adult children of divorce have an increased sense of resilience. According to Fassel, "[T]hey feel that they witnessed things in their families that were deeply disturbing, yet they find that they go on" (116). Once children gain the understanding of their own ability to handle life, they are more likely to discover their resilience. Furthermore, the experience of divorce presents children with the idea that it is okay to fail at something; even when circumstances do not turn out in the most favorable way, positive aspects of them will prevail. Boys who witness a positive divorce are exposed to such success through tribulation. Those who have learned this important life lesson are going to be much more likely to set high goals and take ambitious chances because they have accepted the idea that it is okay to not always succeed. It is clear that when a divorce is handled in a positive way, boys are able to overcome the difficulties and turn this, as any, difficult situation into a positive growing experience. Conclusion The argument made by [authors] Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee in their article [essay name] "Divorce Harms Children" is invalid. [authors' arg.] They improperly claim that divorce is an evil that harms children’s emotional and behavioral development. When Wallerstein and Blakeslee say, [required quote] "[D]ivorce was the single most important cause of pain and anomie in their lives," [my arg.] it appears that they have not carefully considered the repercussions of living in an unhappy home (114). Perhaps they should have addressed the importance of individual responsibility--and placed the blame of emotional and behavioral problems on those getting the divorce, rather than on the divorce itself. --- Return to top.

Related Sections/Chapters: