A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and inverted burdens of proof. This distinction is formalised by adapting the definition of defeat of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ generates abstract argumentation frameworks, the model is...

the concept of mathematical proof has been controversial for the past few decades. different philosophers have offered different theories about the nature of mathematical proof, among which theories presented by lakatos and hersh have had significant similarities and differences with each other. it seems that a comparison and critical review of these two theories will lead to a better understan...

In this paper, we provide a formal logical account of the burden of proof and proof standards in legal reasoning. As opposed to the usual argument-based model we use a hybrid model for Inference to the Best Explanation, which uses stories or explanations as well as arguments. We use examples of real cases to show that our hybrid reasoning model allows for a natural modeling of burdens and stand...

The fight against malaria is currently ongoing in many countries where the disease is still endemic. The overall target is to eliminate malaria in all nations, regardless of their malaria burden, by 2030. Currently, the disease has been eliminated mainly in low-burden and unstable malaria areas globally. However, in high-burden countries, particularly in Africa, the disease is still not elimina...

Five errors that fit under the category of jumping to a conclusion are identified: (1) arguing from premises that are insufficient as evidence to prove a conclusion (2) fallacious argument from ignorance, (3) arguing to a wrong conclusion, (4) using defeasible reasoning without being open to exceptions, and (5) overlooking/suppressing evidence. It is shown that jumping to a conclusion is best s...

This paper presents a formal model that enables us to define five distinct types of burden of proof in legal argumentation. Four standards of proof are shown to play a vital role in defining each type of burden. These standards of proof are defined in a precise way suitable for computing in argumentation studies generally, but are based on a long tradition of their use in law. The paper present...