Argumentative approaches to reasoning with consistent subsets of premises

Abstract

It has been shown that entailments based on the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of a given set of premises can be captured by Dung-style semantics for argumentation frameworks. This paper shows that these links are much tighter and go way beyond simplified forms of reasoning with MCS. Among others, we consider different types of entailments that these kinds of reasoning induce, extend the framework for arbitrary (not necessarily maximal) consistent subsets, and incorporate non-classical logics. The introduction of declarative methods for reasoning with MCS by means of (sequent-based) argumentation frameworks provides, in particular, a better understanding of logic-based argumentation and allows to reevaluate some negative results concerning the latter.