There are at least three Metaphor Systems𓇯 that describe the structure of argued claims. An Argument is all of: a Container, a Building, and a Journey. A speaker needn't commit to just one of those Source Domains𓇯, not even in the same sentence.
Podcast version of this claim 
(links to transcript)
content
Examples of how an argument is a container:
* That claim is *empty*. * His prose is so convoluted that I can't get anything *out of it*.
... or a Building:
* This argument has *weak foundations*. * The more conclusions he piles on, the *shakier* the *edifice* becomes.
... or a Journey:
* You've *lost me*. * You're *going in circles*.
Now consider this sentence from an imaginary math book:
> Let’s summarize how far we’ve *gotten*. After *going down* a few blind alleys (to provide motivation and some history), we’ve arrived at the axiom set that will serve as the *foundation* for the rest of the book. This is perfectly understandable despite using both Building and Journey metaphors.
It's understandable because metaphors work by triggering *associations* between concepts. (Associationist Theories of Thought𓇯) Understanding and problem-solving work on the concepts without regard for how they were activated. So concepts can be mixed and matched without any feeling of inconsistency.
If you want to highlight how well *constructed* an argument is – without regard to its narrative structure – you use a Building metaphor.
If you want to highlight how easy an argument is to *follow* – that is, how the narrative structure unfolds over time – you use a Journey metaphor.
If you want to highlight both, you use both.
Programming
In programming, there are relatively few cases where a word belongs to two different metaphor systems, though I've described two in Integer as a Metaphor𓍯 and Vat and Cruise Ship𓍯.
When a programmer wants to refer to a data structure, only its single name can be used: `Invoice`, for example. That name has a limited and static list of associations. There's no way to "light up" new associations as happened with the Paintbrush as Pump𓍯 metaphor.
It's akin to talking about an Argument purely in terms of Buildings, giving you no chance to appeal to ideas about the arrangement of an argument in time (as you can with the Journey metaphor system).
Objections
What About Inheritance? Isn't that using two names for one thing?
When favoring Composition Over Inheritance, can't the component parts be considered distinct metaphors?