The orthodox view holds that verdicts about hypothetical cases in thought experiments are based on intuitions. Cappelen, Deutsch, and more recently Horvath (collectively CDH) challenge this view, arguing instead that such verdicts are based on arguments. CDH support their view by citing textual evidence from contemporary thought experiments. This paper raises two objections to the argument view, specifically regarding Gettier's thought experiments. First, the linguistic reasoning indicators in Gettier's text are insufficient to substantiate the argument view. Reasoning may facilitate understanding without serving as evidence, leaving room for intuitive justification. Second, the argument view fails to account for the compelling epistemic force of Gettier's case, a point I will substantiate through various arguments.