He bases his warrant on the belief that with love as the driving force, the correct decisions will be made. He says being with one happy parent at a time is preferable to being with both unhappy parents. He is gracious in saying each of his parents made a "sacrifice" to relinquish control of him for six months. There is one statement he makes I certainly disagree with: "I can hardly imagine a more well-adjusted and contented family." That is stretching credulity because in my mind a well-adjusted, contented family would be one in which both parents provide love and nurturing for their children in the same home -- as a loving couple. Question SIX: As already mentioned in this paper, when Putnam changes course in the opening of the third paragraph, it is almost like a night and day difference from what he put forth in the first two paragraphs. All of a sudden his argument is weakened. Later (in paragraphs 4-6) he returns to his earlier assertions that the divorce wasn't bad and in fact was...

But paragraph three is a radical departure from what he had been saying in the earlier narrative.
Question SEVEN: Putnam seems to be anticipating a rebuttal in paragraph 5. He's well aware that problems can arise (abandonment, familial proximity), but none of those negative things happened to him, he assures readers, anticipating a rebuttal. I can rebut his assertion that divorce wasn't so bad because "I am by no means alone in my trials and tribulations." That is absurd. It's like saying, I don't mind having H1N1 influenza because thousands of others have it too. Life doesn't work that way. Individuals have their own pain and negative experiences that they have to deal with even if thousands or millions of others have the same illness. He says "birds of a feather flock together" in the fourth paragraph, but in the next sentence he refers to his "broken brothers and shattered sisters." That doesn't sound like all is well because many others are from divorced families.