Arguments

 This following passage is not from a novel, but rather a scientific paper I read recently. I hope it's still close enough to the topic.

Secondly, as Cowie (2008) points out, the acquisition of grammar is not the only area where we have to acquire knowledge about what is not permissible without the benefit of negative evidence. We face exactly the same problem in lexical learning and learning from experience generally: few people have been explicitly told that custard is not ice-cream, and yet somehow they manage to learn this. Related to this, children do make overgeneralization errors—including morphological overgeneralizations like bringed and gooder and overgeneralizations of various sentence level constructions (e.g., I said her no, She giggled me), and they do recover from them (cf. Bowerman, 1988). Thus, the question isn’t “What sort of innate constraints must we assume to prevent children from overgeneralizing?” but rather “How do children recover from overgeneralization errors?”—and there is a considerable amount of research addressing this very issue (see, for example, Brooks and Tomasello, 1999; Brooks et al., 1999; Tomasello, 2003; Ambridge et al., 2008, 2009, 2011; Boyd and Goldberg, 2011).

Link to the paper here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852/full#B46

This passage is from a paper about arguing that Universal Grammar, which is the idea that every human is born with a basic framework with which to learn language, is invalid. The author is refuting the idea that children don't have enough information to learn what sentences are right or wrong. I picked this paragraph because I liked the comparison about the custard: the whole paper is well-written, but this example shows the absurdity of the negative evidence argument with a simple, relatable comparison. Let me try to do the same with a different argument:

There seems to be a pervasive idea on the internet that there is such a thing as an "objectively good video game." That it's possible to objectively measure the quality of games, and anyone who disagrees with such measurement is wrong. However, what is even meant by a "good game?" To say that one game is better than another, it's necessary to specify criteria to have a basis of comparison, but many people fail to do this, assuming that everyone has a mutual definition of what a good game is, but this is not the case. We know that different characteristics have different importance to people: some may prioritize story, others gameplay. To say that one game is better than another without any explanation is like saying screwdrivers are better than hammers: it's only true if everyone has the same wants when buying tools. We know this isn't true: some people need screwdrivers more, others hammers, and the same applies to games: everyone is looking for something different.