This paper evaluates Tremper Longman and John Walton's claim that the Flood Narrative (FN) in Genesis uses hyperbolic language to portray a historical local flood as a global cataclysm. Though their broader case addresses genre, comparative analysis of ancient Near Eastern literature, and certain scientific issues, this paper focuses specifically on their arguments for hyperbole. After describing their three key arguments, I propose a linguistically informed definition and criteria for identifying and effectively interpreting hyperbole. I then apply that methodological grid built on logical, linguistic, and rhetorical criteria (that is, those involving strategies of persuasion) to test each of their three key arguments. Their first argument—concerning pervasive non-order—meets only four out of ten criteria, none of which pertain to the logical criteria. But even in those criteria that are met, contextual support is still lacking to make a hyperbolic interpretation preferable to a literal interpretation. Their second argument—concerning the Ark's dimensions—fails to meet any of the proposed criteria. Their third argument—concerning the mechanisms and extent of the Flood—satisfies four criteria but still lacks a contextual basis for an explicitly hyperbolic reading. Given the lack of clear methodology, Longman and Walton's interpretation is shown to be rather subjective and, perhaps more based on personal impressions than on rigorous and clear criteria. When tested against a consistent grid, their arguments for hyperbole capsize. Therefore, a more objective interpretation points away from hyperbole and toward a global, catastrophic flood.