arXiv · 1703.08397
Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation
Abstract
We extend the $ASPIC^+$ framework for structured argumentation so as to allow applications of the reasoning by cases inference scheme for defeasible arguments. Given an argument with conclusion `$A$ or $B$', an argument based on $A$ with conclusion $C$, and an argument based on $B$ with conclusion $C$, we allow the construction of an argument with conclusion $C$. We show how our framework leads to different results than other approaches in non-monotonic logic for dealing with disjunctive information, such as disjunctive default theory or approaches based on the OR-rule (which allows to derive a defeasible rule `If ($A$ or $B$) then $C$', given two defeasible rules `If $A$ then $C$' and `If $B$ then $C$'). We raise new questions regarding the subtleties of reasoning defeasibly with disjunctive information, and show that its formalization is more intricate than one would presume.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Mathieu Beirlaen, Jesse Heyninck, Christian Straßer. 2017-03-24. Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08397
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.