This study tackles the exploratory nature of Argumentative Writing and proposes to consider Value Proposition Writing as a form of Exploratory Argumentative Writing through the analysis of first year high school students’ written work. The evaluation of the aforementioned argumentative schemes led to four conclusions. Firstly, we concluded that students often highlight the use of Inductive Argumentative Schemes. Unlike general policy thesis writing, students resorted to inductive reasoning through the search of various premises to formulate their conclusions, rather than presenting one's position beforehand and enumerating the rationalities behind it. Estimation and Authority Argumentative Schemes were found to be the least frequently used. Lastly, Separation Argumentative Schemes and Analogy Argumentative Schemes served as a means of effectively presenting any new insights of the writer. From this point of view, this study proved that value proposition writing can be a methodology for argumentative education as an act of inquiry and for deepening the writer's perception.