I understand the idea of the "bottom line" post a little distinctly. In my understanding it doesn't address the process of arguing (i.e. constructing verbal expressions capable of persuading others).

I have a general objection against this interpretation - it throws away the literal meaning of the EY's post.

But there is also a pragmatic difference, about where to direct the focus of attention when one tries to de-bias one's reasoning. With the three steps as I stated them, I know that I cannot really fix the step 1, beyond trying to catch myself before I commit, as lincolnquirk suggested. Step 2 is comparatively harmless, so it's the step 3 where I must put the real defense.

But most arguments are about complex hypotheses whose justification could be (and usually is) reduced to a chain of elementary inductive steps. For such hypotheses it is certainly feasible (psychologically or otherwise) to arrive at them gradually - guessing and rationalising the irreducible bits which can be easily checked, but not the hypothesis as a whole.

Could you mention specific examples of such complex hypotheses? I mean, where it would make sense to know the conclusion in advance, and yet the conclusion would not be reachable in a single intuitive leap. It seems contradictory.