It is not uncommon to find a huge emphasis on thought experiments in applied philosophy.
Much of the hypotheticals thrown around in applied philosophy are usually an extreme hypothetical similar to the main issue, specifically attempting to invoke a contradictory feeling for the rule/principle it was arguing against; thus settling its case. An example would be Judith Thomson's guitarist example (how well it accomplishes the intended task is beside the point).
I am aware of the logical commitments that there are with a theoretical line/rule. If I were to impose a theoretical rule, I should be committed to it in every possible situation.
Having said that, I would argue that the use of extreme hypotheticals against a theoretical line should have some sort of restriction, especially in applied philosophy. Is there some sort of defense that can be provided for such a restriction, or is it merely a cost we have to pay for playing with abstract concepts in the practical domain?