Policy as Argument—A Logic for Ill-Structured Decision Problems

Abstract

This paper presents a new framework for handling ill-structured decision problems. The framework derives from recent developments in the logic of argumentation. It shows how policy statements may under certain conditions be construed as the outcome of a complex process of argumentation. The framework is especially suited to ill-structured decision problems since it is capable of handling explicit contradictions and missing parts in an argument structure. It is also shown by means of a new concept—plausibility—how it is possible to locate the weakest links in a complex argument. A major consequence of the concept of plausibility is that it is possible under certain conditions to transform a problem in the logic of argumentation (i.e., symbolic logic) into one of algebra (i.e., linear programming).