I'm sorry, Fred, you're wrong again.

There is a logical fault called circularity but that is not present in Margaret's argument because she's doesn't say she's proved anything.

Take hunger as an example. People said in the past "I always eat because I'm hungry". Why? Because whenever I'm hungry, I eat. The circularity here just means that the conclusion can not be fully suported with that little of evidence; it doesn't mean that it's wrong. So, these people have not proven that they eat because they are hungry, it's just their working hypothesis. It's not proven until scientists show that the brain signals hunger when blood sugar goes low and we get sugar from carbohydrates that we eat; plus, we ultimately need the sugars to create ATP in mitochondria for energy.

Of course, you can disprove this hypothesis by showing one time each person eats when they are not hungry.

Take Margaret's hypothesis as an example. She is not saying that she proved that all decisions are emotional, just that it's her best guess. And, thinking that every decision she's seen so far has been emotional makes that a damn good first guess and one I wouldn't argue against. She even asked for counter examples.

If someone discovers decision mitochondria that rely on emotion chemicals, then they could prove it. Your taunting with vacuous arguments can not disprove it. Margaret's hypothesis is not 'useless'; in fact, it's probably true.