On the justification of statements in argumentation-based reasoning

In the study of argumentation-based reasoning, argument justification has received far more attention than statement justification, often treated as a simple byproduct of the former. As a consequence, counterintuitive results and significant losses of sensitivity can be identified in the treatment of statement justification by otherwise appealing formalisms. To overcome this limitation, we propose to reappraise statement justification as a formalism-independent component. To this purpose, we introduce a novel general model of argumentationbased reasoning based on multiple levels of labellings, one of which is devoted to statement justification. This model is able to encompass several literature proposals as special cases: we illustrate this ability for the case of the ASPIC+formalism and provide a first example of tunable statement justification in this context.