Example Argument - Disney Vacation Club

Let’s consider another set of claims:

Members of the Disney Vacation Club can now access the Genie+ fast pass. Those who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app. All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom. Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club. He has a Genie+ pass yet he has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything. Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.

Is this an argument?

Again, the answer is yes. It has all the elements of an argument. It’s got multiple premises and it’s got a conclusion.

How do we know that it’s got premises and a conclusion? By appealing to the definitions of premise and conclusion.

Premise: gives support
Conclusion: receives support

Here we have many claims:

1. Disney Vacation Club members can access the Genie+ system.
2. Members who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can get their Genie+ pass via the app.
3. All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom.
4. Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club.
5. Walt has a Genie+ pass.
6. Walt has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything.
7. Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.

Claims (1) through (6) (the premises) support claim (7) (the conclusion). In fact, the support is so strong that if claims (1) through (6) are true, then claim (7) must be true.

How do we know this? Well, I could ask you, “Why must Walt have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse?"

You: Okay, we know that Walt is a Disney Vacation Club member and has a Genie+ pass.
Me: Go on...
You: There are only two methods to obtain a Genie+ pass: a) Offering propitiations to Mickey Mouse; or b) Prostrating before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom.
Me: Yes, and...
You: We know that Walt has never prostrated himself before anyone or anything.
Me: Okay, let's bring this home.
You: So that leaves only one option left, which is that he must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.
Me: Congrats, you sort of just did your first Must Be True LR question!

Actual Must Be True questions won't supply you with the conclusion. They'll supply you with premises and you will be expected to infer the proper conclusions. We'll cover this in more depth later in the curriculum.

Right now, I want you to spend a minute thinking about the support in this argument and compare it to the support in the Tiger argument. Does it feel different in some way and if so, why?