Delving into the foundations of logical reasoning, this paper investigates attack principles within sequent-based argumentation frameworks, exploring the significance of minimality and consistency in argument support sets. By examining the preservation of strength, the authors introduce a formal criterion for sorting out attack principles and identifying the most justifiable ones. The research uncovers a novel argumentative semantics for a non-classical logic derived from Gentzen’s classical sequent calculus for classical logic LK, achieved by omitting specific rules. Key findings emphasize the role of minimality and consistency in defining attack principles. The preservation of strength criterion helps to isolate the more acceptable principles, providing a clearer understanding of argumentative semantics. The study recovers a new argumentative semantics for the non-classical logic, enhancing the understanding of logical reasoning. This theoretical exploration contributes to the advancement of argumentation theory and non-classical logic. The results have implications for artificial intelligence, computer science, and philosophy, offering valuable insights into the nature of logical reasoning and argumentation.
This paper on argumentation theory fits within the scope of the Journal of Logic and Computation, which covers topics in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science. The research contributes to the theoretical foundations of argumentation frameworks by exploring different attack principles and their relation to sequent calculus, thus aligning with the journal's focus on formal methods in logic and computation.