Pragmatic argument

The government should not introduce a basic income because that will lead to a drop in income for most people.

As “that” refers to “introducing a basic income”, after some reconstruction, it is clear that the argument form is alpha (a is X because a is Y): “Introducing a basic income (a) should not be done (X) because it (a) will lead to a drop in income for most people (Y)”.

The conclusion is a statement of policy (P) and the premise a statement of fact (F), so the argument substance is PF: “Introducing a basic income should not be done (P) because it will lead to a drop in income for most people (F)”.

The keyword PRAGMATIC MOTIVATION describes the relationship between predicates Y and X. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Leading to a drop in income for most people (Y) is a PRAGMATIC MOTIVATION for not doing it (X)”.

Other examples

• Children should sleep without a light on, because that prevents them from ruining their eyesight (presented by Martijn Demollin at the VIOT 2018 Conference based on research reported in Quinn et al. (1999), Nature Magazine, 399, 113-114 and featured in a news article from BBC News, Health, May 12, 1999, URL = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/342256.stm).

Notes

In reconstructing arguments with a statement of policy (P) in the conclusion, it is often helpful to take the activity (in this case, “introducing a basic income”) as its subject.