I'm noticing that they effectively used a series of rhetorical questions to try to make a point. The point is that the curve of worker skill to product cost doesn't have to be the same between a pastry chef and a software developer. That concept is more interesting to me than any references would likely be.

Without any support there's no way to evaluate it, interesting or not.

I don't think that truth evaluation should always be the point (at least not initially). More like...a comparison to push into the list for deferred evaluation, as the discussion evolves later in the thread.

If the comment were a stand-alone work, I'd agree, there's no point without framing it as a complete argument with a thesis and supporting statements. However, it's a component of an evolving body of work (the entire comment tree for the story). It can provide an interesting thesis, and it'll either be supported or refuted by other comments.

In that case, I don't think the challenge to this argument is any less valuable.