Consider the claim 01 | It is unlikely that UBI will be implemented before 2028. In response, I really want to be able to say 02 | Passing a UBI bill would be a massive undertaking AND no serious attempts have begun. I want to make my claim in two parts. I think this might get to CDL’s distinction between an argument and a claim.
Using Toulmin warrants
You could say 12 | No serious attempts have begun and have 13 | Passing a UBI bill would be a massive undertaking as a Toulmin warrant.
The necessity of evaluating obviousness
From a UI point of view, the trick is to figure out is whether the warrant should be visible. That’s always the question. You always want to be able to make your point without having to explicitly fill in every single step that leads you there. But if it’s not obvious, you really do want to include it. In the above example, you might be able to get away with only saying 12. Of course, 13 should always be available, but how can you tell whether it should be shown by default?