Thoughts on the argument between Strawberry Sunrise and Applejack in Season 7 Episode 9: Honest Apple

This pertains to an argument that takes about 30 seconds of the episodes but is apparently the crux of its moral, so if you don't like spoilers, don't read.

Now, most of this is, in fact, me listing off logical fallacies which the characters used, and why I believe their arguments are logical fallacies. Some of it, however, is simply stating how they may be wrong. Really, neither of them are objectively right or wrong, but are arguing like they have the objectively correct premise.

Calling apples "tasteless" and "worm filled" as reasons why you don't like them uses the following logical fallacy: Hasty Generalization, which is when one assumes things on insufficient or biased evidence. Along with that, it uses the Fallacy of Composition: while some apples are "worm filled" and some apples may very well be tasteless, her argument is based on all apples being that, when only a small amount of apples even contain one worm, much less being filled with worms. Some apples may be tasteless, but not all of them.

Her argument that apples are only better than Strawberries at being disgusting is simply wrong: an apple is better at taking up space due to the fact that apples are large. Along with that, and average apple contains 19 grams of sugar while an average strawberry contains 0.6 grams of sugar. If you wish to get more sugar from one fruit, an apple is far better than a strawberry. An Apple is far better for helping you do work, since work needs energy and you get that energy from sugar: more than 30 strawberries must be eaten in order for you to get a sugar amount close to or equal to an apple, and 30 strawberries takes more space than one apple.

When Strawberry Sunrise didn't refute Applejack's initial argument about apples, she used a Red Herring fallacy, Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy, and the Affirming a Disjunct fallacy by stating "They're not strawberries!" It is a Red Herring because them not being strawberries has nothing to do with apples not tasting good or being crunchy, and simply distracts from the actual, original argument. It is an Ignoratio Elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion, because it seriously has nothing to do with a dislike of apples. It is an Affirming a Disjunct fallacy because it has the basis of a fruit either being a strawberry or not being "sweet" or "delicious" and as such, the argument is that it can't taste good because it is not a strawberry.

However, Applejack's initial argument of them being "crunchy," "sweet," and "delicious" is flawed as well: It uses the Fallacy of Composition argument as well, as not all apples are crunchy, sweet, and/or delicious. Some apples are mushy, not crunchy. Some apples are sour, not sweet. The final statement of what apples are, in Applejacks eyes, is a purely subjective measure. Sweetness is caused by the presence of certain materials, and how the presence interacts with the taste buds of a tongue; therefore there is a somewhat objective measure in that. If something is crunchy, then it creates a sharp sound when crushed or bitten, and thus there is a somewhat objective standard. Delicious means that it has a pleasant taste. That is not objective, simply subjective, as what is pleasant to someone will vary. Some may like sour foods more than sweet foods, which they may like more than savory foods, but they may never feel like anything is delicious.