Some problems can be overcome with planning and forethought, as we have seen, but this eventuality is difficult to guard against, the best advice being the fullest possible airing of views on every aspect of the topic before marriage (Shreeve, 89). I believe that this fits well with Walton’s argument as a reasoned dialogue. In discussing these issues the couple will go through all types of dialogue: quarrel, debate, persuasion to get the other person to see their point, negotiation to come to an agreement, information seeking – asking further questions, action seeking, and even educational. After applying Walton’s dialogue they will have aired their views on every aspect of the topic of mar

Here is a Walton’s appeals to authority. It is a case of showing why the author is an authority but not really backing up why she is an authority. Ciji Ware has been reporting on behavior, psychology, and economic news for fifteen years. She broadcasts dialy on ABC Radio and twice weekly with her own segment, “Reporting on the Family,: for KABC-TV in Los Angeles. She appears regularly on such national programs as Hour Magazine and Alive & Well. Ms. Ware is a graduate of Harvard University and lives full-time with her husband, journalisht and screenwriter Anthony Cook, and part-time with her son, Jamie (Ware, inside book cover). You could say she is an authority because of her degree and having worked fifteen years in the field. But, what do the radio and tv shows have to do with it. You could appear on these shows and not have a degree. Why do they make her an authority figure? In her fifteen years how many people has seen actually worked with or has she just had her degree for that period of time and appeared on the radio and tv shows. This book is based on the author’s own divorce and custody situation. Does this make her an expert on the subject? Here is a passage from the author’s book that states she isn’t an expert in the field but writing the book makes her appear to be an expert. Special thanks go to Director of Conciliation Court who never doubted that a nonlawyer, nontherapist could write a book for divorcing parents (Ware, preface xv).

I am not totally sure that this book does a good job of showing every viewpoint. It tends to lean towards the woman’s point of view. It is hard to judge Walton’s critieria when they are telling you how to handle a situation when I am not an expert on the situation. It is somewhat biased towards Christians too. Here is a passage that this refers to. As a Christian, I can’t help wondering whether some the children Jesus took into his arms were from broken homes. Jesus reflects the divine love for all children. Whatever your religious persusaion, you can believe that God wants to forge the same kind of meaning and wholeness for your young ones that you desire. God loves them. Their survival doesn’t depend on you alone. They have durable resources at work - and so does God (Correu, 106). What does this really have to do with helping your children handle divorce and your communciation as parents?

In conclusion, in going over all three of the books I can truly say that I only thought that one book did a true job of not showing any bias towards either gender and did a great job and looking at divorce and communication from eve

Some topics in this essay:
Divorced Parents”, Mom Dad, Conciliation Court, Jamie Ware, Critical Argumentation, God Correu, Ciji Ware, Harvard University, ABC Radio, Los Angeles, child support, children happy, paid child support, paid child, walton’s fallacies, 100 kids, walton’s fallacies parents, marriage shreeve, topic marriage, aspect topic, child support children, views aspect, support children happy, children happy children, walton’s ideas,