We prove the following stronger statement. Claim. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a good set consisting of $n \geqslant 2$ positive integers. Then the elements of $\mathcal{S}$ may be ordered as $a_{1}, a_{2}, \ldots, a_{n}$ so that $a_{i} \nmid a_{i-1}+a_{i+1}$ and $a_{i} \nmid a_{i-1}-a_{i+1}$, for all $i=2,3, \ldots, n-1$. Proof. Say that the ordering $a_{1}, \ldots, a_{n}$ of $\mathcal{S}$ is nice if it satisfies the required property. We proceed by induction on $n$. The base case $n=2$ is trivial, as there are no restrictions on the ordering. To perform the step of induction, suppose that $n \geqslant 3$. Let $a=\max \mathcal{S}$, and set $\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{S} \backslash\{a\}$. Use the inductive hypothesis to find a nice ordering $b_{1}, \ldots, b_{n-1}$ of $\mathcal{T}$. We will show that $a$ may be inserted into this sequence so as to reach a nice ordering of $\mathcal{S}$. In other words, we will show that there exists a $j \in\{1,2, \ldots, n\}$ such that the ordering
$$N_{j}=\left(b_{1}, \ldots, b_{j-1}, a, b_{j}, b_{j+1}, \ldots, b_{n-1}\right)$$
is nice. Assume that, for some $j$, the ordering $N_{j}$ is not nice, so that some element $x$ in it divides either the sum or the difference of two adjacent ones. This did not happen in the ordering of $\mathcal{T}$, hence $x \in\left\{b_{j-1}, a, b_{j}\right\}$ (if, say, $b_{j-1}$ does not exist, then $x \in\left\{a, b_{j}\right\}$; a similar agreement is applied hereafter). But the case $x=a$ is impossible: $a$ cannot divide $b_{j-1}-b_{j}$, since $0<\left|b_{j-1}-b_{j}\right|<a$, while $a \nmid b_{j-1}+b_{j}$ by Observation A. Therefore $x \in\left\{b_{j-1}, b_{j}\right\}$. In this case, assign the number $x$ to the index $j$. Suppose now that none of the $N_{j}$ is nice. Since there are $n$ possible indices $j$, and only $n-1$ elements in $\mathcal{T}$, one of those elements (say, $b_{k}$) is assigned to two different indices, which then should equal $k$ and $k+1$. This means that $b_{k}$ divides the numbers $b_{k-1}+\varepsilon_{1} a$ and $a+\varepsilon_{2} b_{k+1}$, for some signs $\varepsilon_{1}, \varepsilon_{2} \in\{-1,1\}$. But then
$$b_{k-1} \equiv-\varepsilon_{1} a \equiv \varepsilon_{1} \varepsilon_{2} b_{k+1} \quad\left(\bmod b_{k}\right),$$
and therefore $b_{k} \mid b_{k-1}-\varepsilon_{1} \varepsilon_{2} b_{k+1}$, which means that the ordering of $\mathcal{T}$ was not nice. This contradiction proves the step of induction.