In this postmodern era, is there such a thing? What was once illogical — or, even worse, absurd — is now considered an acceptable and viable argument.
Logical fallacies are accepted; non-sequiturs are fully embraced; whether or not the “middle term” is carried over from the major premise to the minor is irrelevant; and “just because” is nowhere blinked at, as the final conclusion to every argument these days is that “everyone is entitled to his or her opinion” and it matters not whether specific facts undermine a viewpoint expressed.
Thus, does it even make a difference whether or not an argument is “viable” enough?
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who are considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FERS, an argument used in attempting to persuade OPM to approve your Federal Disability Retirement application is one which must appeal to the Statute, the Regulations, or to MSPB and/or Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Case-Law precedents.
Yes, there is still a distinction between an irrelevant, weak and inconsequential argument, and a viable one. The viable argument is one based upon facts, the law, and an irrefutable delineation logical fortitude. In order to make the viable argument, contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Medical Retirement Law.
Robert R. McGill
Lawyer exclusively representing Federal and Postal employees to secure their Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.