Rethinking the rationality postulates for argumentation-based inference

Abstract

Much research on structured argumentation aims to satisfy the rationality postulates of direct and indirect consistency and strict (deductive) closure. However, examples like the lottery paradox indicate that it is sometimes rational to accept sets of propositions that are indirectly inconsistent or not deductively closed. This paper proposes a variant of the ASPIC+ framework that violates indirect consistency and full strict closure but satisfies direct consistency and restricted forms of strict closure and indirect consistency.