IRKSOME ARGUMENT

This argument occurred between me and this girl I am “talking” to (in a romantic sense)

who for this article will be referred to as UGGGG. I had agreed to get lunch with her during my last

class and told her I would be out in an hour. I had a lot on my plate (pardon the figure of speech)

and the stress had made me unable to even think about food. I canceled the plans. I told her I

couldn’t figure out where I wanted to eat and there was no way I was going to be able to handle

the added stress of figuring it out for the both of us. UGGGG is a notoriously picky eater. She

responded by telling me she had not ate in 2 days and that she had been waiting on me to eat.

Technically a valid statement, but not the statement I wanted to hear. I immediately became upset,

stating that I had only made the arrangements less than an hour ago and the gravity of the

consequences of my cancelling should in no way be burdened upon me. UGGGG retorted by stating

that she had resorted to “only nibbles” for the last hour due to my promise. While I replied that I

had essentially made peace with those consequences, I reminded her that added stress is why I

canceled the date in the first place.

UGGGG, to her credit, then stepped up and said that she easily COULD make the decision

for where we would go for sustenance. However, I had already given her an hour to make this

decision while I was in class. She then called me, previously this conversation had taken place over

text. UGGGG tried to tell me that she wasn’t “trying” to make me feel guilty for canceling plans on

her. I questioned her reasoning behind telling me the fact she had not ate in 2 days. I reasoned that

the only valid conclusion from its inclusion was that she wanted me to feel guilty, as I was the

reason she had prolonged her 48 hour fast into a 49 hour fast. I drew the conclusion from this, that

my initial assessment of the stress of this date was correct and should be avoided. Her points were

not invalid but as she reiterated them, I felt more isolated. I felt like she was listening, but I wasn’t
being heard. She was not understanding my words on an emotional level and how they

represented my feelings. I told her this as well. She corrected me. She told me that technically that

she was “hearing” me and not “listening” to me, ignoring the stipulative definition I had just

defined. An argument then ensued about the reportive definition of those words in the field of

psychology. UGGGG was correct and took her victory proudly, but it had derailed the conversation

from my point of being understood.

Now let us examine the argument from her perspective:

C: Loose plans for lunch with UGGG cannot be cancelled without guilt

P1: I had made an agreement to go to lunch with her

MP2: I should keep my word to her

P3: She hadn’t eaten in 48 hours and needed to eat

MP4: I had to go with her to eat

P5: She could make the decision on where to go to lunch if forced too

Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills by William Hughes's defines the

strength of a logical argument by the ability to infer the conclusion from the premise(s) (pg 5). Each

premise is evaluated by its acceptability, relevancy, and adequacy. A premises is determined to be

acceptable if the truth of the premise itself can be determined. This is an objective conclusion

because if a premise is false then it is a moot point. The relevancy of a premise can be determined

by the ability of this truth to relate to the conclusion. This is important to remember. For example,

while it is true that the rate of HIV is higher in other countries, this does not pertain to whether HIV

is a problem in America or not. Adequacy of a premise is a measurement of degree to which it

supports the conclusion (pg93-95). This is lacking when premise(s) is(are) true and relevant but

come from a small sample or it is part of larger complex system that is unaccounted for. These are

useful tools we will use for the dissection of UGGGs argument.

There are a lot of problems with the premises of UGGG’s argument. In order to save the

best for last, we will examine each premise in order of increasing support for her conclusion. The

missing premise 4 in her argument was that it was necessary for me to go with her for her to eat

lacks acceptability as she can eat alone. Meals in most restaurants are ordered individually. Premise

3 lacks proper adequacy, the plans were only made an hour prior and had no bearing on her

decision to eat for the previous 48 hours or not. Premise 5 serves as both an acceptable and

potentially adequate support for her argument, as it would of reduced the stress of the encounter.

However, lacks relevancy because she did not make the decision in the time allotted. While she

could make the decision she had not after an hour had passed. This leaves only the premise that I

should keep my word to her to support her conclusion, that I should keep my lunch plans with her.

This was her main contention. We shall examine each premise individually.

The missing or implied premise that she needed me to go with her to eat is not an

acceptable premise. She could go and grab food on her own. As a restaurant worker for over a

decade, I can assure you that every restaurant will serve parties of 1. She also lives within 300 ft of

5 restaurants. All of these locations were open for the next 6 hours when the plans were cancelled.

To confirm this point, I booked reservations for a party of 1 at 4 out of the 5 restaurants online. All

of them were able to accommodate. She also always has access to a variety of packaged food in her

deep freezer chest. With the oven, stovetop, and microwave she has, a meal could of have been

prepared. I and UGGG’s friends can all confirm that she is a good cook. Finally, UGGG lives directly
above a convenience store open for 8 more hours at this point, further emphasizing her

accessibility to food.

This brings into question the adequacy of premise 3, the fact that she had not eaten in 48

hours. The decisions that UGGG made 48 hours before making plans with me were made

independent of my input. She does not talk to me every day. In fact, in this situation, we had not

hung out or talked for 3 days. The last time we hung out we made no other plans, not even abstract

ones without a defined date. So, while it is true that she had not eaten in 48 hours and is relevant

to the consequences of not going to our planned lunch, the consequences of her not getting food

due to my cancellation were easily mitigatable. This premise lacks adequacy since dining options

existed without me. The removal of me from this situation had no negative impact on her ability to

get food.

The fact that UGGG could make the decision on where to go to lunch, premise 5, ignores

relevant data. The task had been given to her an hour previously. If we give her the benefit of the

doubt and assume that the statement “she could make the decision on where to go to lunch” as a

tautology, then the premise lacks relevancy. She had not made the decision and still asked for

input. A premise that could have provided the support she was aiming for would have been

providing names of establishments near our location that we both liked (ex. Juanita Greenberg’s,

The Brick, or Indaco). Making a decision and being able to make a decision are not the same thing.

For example, being able to change a tire and changing a tire are two very different situations. You

can’t go anywhere until the tire is changed and you can’t go anywhere until you decide on where to

go. In 30 minutes of further deliberation, she did not offer a decision, so our plan was never

concrete. However, this further cemented the lack of relevancy of her point.
 This leaves only the implied premise 2, that a person should always keep their plans with

someone. This premise is weak because it is rooted in the strength of the belief that people should

ALWAYS keep their word. This belief varies from person to person. But even if we ignore this and

through the principle of charity (Critical Thinking, pg 47-48) and assume people should keep their

word, we can examine this situation in extremis. For example, if my dog was sick, it would be

considered acceptable to cancel lunch plans to take my dog to the vet, maybe even dinner plans.

On the other hand, if I cancelled plans because I stubbed my toe it would be a little inconsiderate.

This is because the former situation has a time pressure in play while the latter does not. If the dog

is not taken to the vet, there is a possibility that the dog may become more ill. Not having enough

time for homework falls closer to the former on the spectrum, leaving the logical strength of this

premise weak. Time is immutable and the due date of homework cannot be changed without the

consent of the entire class. Failure to complete the assignment in the allotted time would result in a

zero because answers to the assignment would be gone over in class. We have already established

previously that I was not necessary for her to eat right now removing the time pressure and I

suggested alternative plans for lunch the following day that were rejected. From this, it is clear that

the aversion of a promise was not intended but impossible due to time constraints. In addition,

completion of homework is essential to the completion of college. The level of completion of

education is the main factor in determining a person’s level of income according to the US Bureau

of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey conducted monthly.

(https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2021/data-on-display/education-pays.htm) Having a higher

income allows for more lunches and dinners out in the future. Also, there was a tacit agreement

upon my enrollment in each class that I would keep my word and complete each assignment in a

timely manner. This agreement has a specific emphasis on the time of each homework to be
assigned outlined in the beginning of the semester. This professor would not consider lunch plans

with a colleague to be a valid reason to grant an extension on an assignment making the time

constraint for the homework absolute.

After examining UGGG’s argument premise by premise, the only premise left to support her

conclusion is the implied premise 2, whether it is more important to keep your commitment to

lunch plans without rescheduling or to complete your homework in a timely manner. In the

principle of charity, the adequacy of this premise can be strengthened if the reader values college

as worthless. That premises in itself is unacceptable from a financial standpoint alone when

evaluated with current knowledge. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a valid argument

could exist for the value of college being nothing but that is out of the scope of this paper.

However, the current consensus from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and parents everywhere is the

opposite. This leaves the logical strength of the conclusion from UGGG’s premises weak and the

conclusion needs more support to be considered valid.