I came across an editorial about education in the New York Times that I feel models Sudweeks' claim structure quite well. "A Vital Boost for Education" (4 February 2009) begins with a policy claim: The education stimulus package needs to be used to implement the changes of the No Child Left Behind Act. The editorial then supports that initial policy claim by using several other types of claims. A few paragraphs down, the editorial implies through factual claims that the House's bill contains the national funds necessary to supplement the state funds that schools lose to public works projects. Two value claims used in the argument imply that the House bill is better than the Senate bill because the Senate bill allows some of the stimulus laws and some parts of the No Child Left Behind Act to be ignored. Overall, the last half of this editorial is essentially a causal claim because it can be phrased in an "if-then" statement that supports the initial policy claim: If the House bill becomes law, the stimulus money will be used effectively.

In the end, neither bill won of it's own accord, but a combined bill did become law. The Observationalism website shows detailed results how the Senate voted on the Senate's initial bill and on the final combined bill.