Our ambition in this paper is to begin to specify in argumentative terms (some of) the steps involved in a decision-aiding process. To do that, we make use of the popular notion of argument schemes, and specify the related critical questions. A hierarchical structure of argument schemes allows to decompose the process into several distinct steps—and for each of them the underlying premises are made explicit, which allows in turn to identify how these steps can be dialectically defeated via critical questions. This work initiates a systematic study which aims at constituting a significant step forward for forthcoming decision-aiding tools. The kind of system that we foresee and sketch here would allow: (i) to present a recommendation that can be explicitly justified; (ii) to revise any piece of reasoning involved in this process, and be informed of the consequences of such moves; and possibly (iii) to stimulate the client by generating contradictory arguments.