This paper presents a case study in which an opinion of a legal scholar on a legislative proposal is formally reconstructed in the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference. The reconstruction uses a version of the argument scheme for good and bad consequences that does not refer to single but to sets of consequences, in order to model aggregation of reasons for and against proposals. The case study is intended to contribute to a comparison between various formal frameworks for argumentation by providing a new benchmark example. It also aims to illustrate the usefulness of two features of ASPIC+: its distinction between deductive and defeasible inference rules and its ability to express arbitrary preference orderings on arguments.
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
Tel.: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300 firstname.lastname@example.org
(Corporate matters and books only) IOS Press c/o Accucoms US, Inc.
For North America Sales and Customer Service
West Point Commons
Lansdale PA 19446
Tel.: +1 866 855 8967
Fax: +1 215 660 5042 email@example.com