As a psychologist, Neil claims that people should be alarmed over the social changed of cohabitation. He then tells the reader that there are only two reasons couple cohabitate. First, the couple wants to the enjoy the benefits of living together, such as financial resources, sex, etc. or they want to use it as a trail marriage. A premise he makes is that those who are married without cohabitation have a lower divorce rate rather than those who have cohabitation before their marriage.
Furthermore, he believes that marriage is good for kids because couples who are married can provide a more stable environment for their kids than those who are cohabit. He also argued that married couple are physically, emotionally, vocationally, and financially better than unmarried people.
…show more content…
Several states of the United States forbid same sex marriage. Other couples face the problem of financial burdens from marriage. Neil’s three reasons why couple engage in trail marriage and choose to delay their marriage is because of a lot of luster in society, witnessing broken marriages make it seem risky, and lost confidence in correctly judging long lasting matches. He fails to acknowledge other reasons as to why a number of couples cannot be married. A false dilemma is a logical fallacy in which two choices are present, but the author had not considered other possibilities. Another fallacy in Neil’s essay is hasty generalization. An example, Warren quoted the statistic result from a survey he made to support that “marriage has lost a lot of its luster in our society”. Hasty generalization means “drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation”. The reader does not know how the samples were collected in his survey, and that the sample size is too small. Because a hasty generalization is present, it makes the premise