There seems to be a class of arguments in which one person tries to justify some investment (some sort of 'cost' such as money or time) by argueing that it helps mitigate the situation that some (supposed?) risk manifests as a problem. For example:
- We should get this car insurance because when we have an accident, the costs will be high.
- We should spend time on training our teaching staff because doing so too late may cause people to not send their children to our school.
- We should work on improving the logging functionality of our software such that if a customer reports a bug, we have a better chance of diagnosing the cause.
Typically, such arguments are difficult because the person trying to justify the investment is basing her argument on a potential win whereas the counter-argument is based on a concrete cost.
I once heard the term "uphill argument" (and have been using it ever since) for this kind of situation where it's much easier to argue against some decision than in favor of it. I imagine it's derived from an 'uphill battle' in which the party further up the hill requires less effort than the party down the hill. I wonder: is there an 'official', commonly acknowledged name for it?