Strong and Valid Argument

I'm in a Collaborative Inquiry group. There are 9 of us. So far, we've all worked in harmony. This group is beginning to be highly productive. Today one question was brought forward. There is a member who has missed two sessions and is planning to miss two more as he will be out of town. Should we allow him to continue in the group? This is a highly emotional subject. The subject of our inquiry is about stress, and we are thinking of adding to the stress of this one delinquent member.

H said "He adds a lot to the group. He's always funny and breaks the tension. I like having him here." B said "I like him too, and he really needs our support right now". D said, "I don't know him outside the group, but it's one of our norms (rules decided on by the group) that you can only miss two sessions."

The weak argument was "He adds a lot to the group". So far, he's missed half the meetings. If he's not there, he can't add to the group, so it is invalid as well.

The strong argument was " It's one of our norms that you can only miss two sessions" and he would be gone for four. This was also valid. It would break our accepted norm behavior to allow him to continue.

We had some discussion about how group membership changes dynamics, and how much the group had changed just within the two sessions already missed. One of his co-wokers metioned that he generally had too much to do that the committment to work outside of group time was another pressure. The decision maker was the strong and valid argument - we made the rule and should not break it unless there was strong agrument to do so. And there was no strong argument. We came to consensus.