A postulate-driven study of logical argumentation

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modeling non-monotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a comprehensive postulate-based study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks and a full characterization of their semantics and inference relations. In this way we identify well-behaved formal argumentative models of drawing logically justified inferences from a given set of possibly conflicting defeasible, as well as strict assumptions. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. One purpose of this approach is to assist designers to “plug-in” pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. To this end, we present a classification of argumentation frameworks relative to the types of attacks they implement. In turn, for each class we determine which desiderata are satisfied. Our study is highly abstract, supposing only a minimal set of requirements on the considered underlying deductive systems, and in this way covering a broad range of formalisms, including classical, intuitionistic and modal logics.