A Dialogue Interaction Module

for a Decision Support System Based

on Argumentation Schemes to Public
Project Portfolio

Laura Cruz-Reyes, César Medina-Trejo,

María Lucila Morales-Rodríguez,
Claudia Guadalupe Gómez-Santillan,
Teodoro Eduardo Macias-Escobar, César Alejandro Guerrero-Nava
and Mercedes Pérez-Villafuerte

Abstract Organizations are facing the problem of having more projects than
resources to implement them. In this paper, we present a dialogue interaction
module of a framework for a Decision Support System (DSS) to aid in the selection
of public project portfolios. The Interaction module of this DSS is based on mul-
tiple argumentation schemes and dialogue games that not only allow the system to
generate and justify a recommendation. This module is also able to obtain new
information during the dialogue that allows changing the recommendation
according to the Decision Maker’s preferences. Researchers have commonly
addressed the public portfolio selection problem with multicriteria algorithms.

L. Cruz-Reyes (&)
M.L. Morales-Rodríguez
C.G. Gómez-Santillan

T.E. Macias-Escobar
C.A. Guerrero-Nava
Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Madero,
1o. de Mayo y Sor Juana I. de la Cruz S/N C.P. 89440 Cd, Ciudad Madero, Mexico
e-mail: lauracruzreyes@itcm.edu.mx
M.L. Morales-Rodríguez
e-mail: lmoralesrdz@gmail.com
C.G. Gómez-Santillan
e-mail: cggs71@hotmail.com
T.E. Macias-Escobar
e-mail: teodoro_macias@hotmail.com
C.A. Guerrero-Nava
e-mail: cesaragn1990@hotmail.com
C. Medina-Trejo
M. Pérez-Villafuerte
Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana,
Tijuana, B.C, Mexico
e-mail: cesarmedinatrejo@gmail.com
M. Pérez-Villafuerte
e-mail: pvmercedes@gmail.com

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 741

P. Melin et al. (eds.), Nature-Inspired Design of Hybrid Intelligent Systems,
Studies in Computational Intelligence 667, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47054-2_49
742 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

However, in the real life the final selection of the solution depends on the decision
maker (DM). We modeled the reasoning of DM by a Dialogue Corpus. This corpus
is a database, supported by an argument tree that validates the system’s recom-
mendations with the preferences of the DM.

Keywords Argumentation schemes
Dialogue corpus
Recommendation system

1 Introduction

The public project portfolio selection is a primary task in institutions or organi-

zations because decisions impact directly on the society. Commonly the organi-
zations have more projects than resources to support them; they have to choose the
portfolio that provides more benefits based on the criteria of the organization.
This problem is mainly addressed through multicriteria algorithms, which do not
generate a solution, but a set of solutions on the Pareto front; recent studies have
focused on seeking a privileged region of this front, where the preferences of the
decision maker are reflected. However, the generated recommendations are pre-
sented without any justification or explanation of why certain projects are or are not
within the portfolio. The selection of a portfolio depends on the decision maker
(DM); a justification of the recommendation would help to make this decision in a
less demanding way.
This paper presents a framework of decision support, in order to provide
explanations and justifications to a recommended project portfolio generated by a
multicriteria algorithm. The proposed approach makes a hybrid combination of an
approximate algorithm with an exact method.
Using the information generated we can enter into a dialogue game with the DM
based on the argumentation theory and the proposed interaction module to state
valid arguments of why the presented recommended portfolio satisfies the DM
preferences, also, we can explain why certain projects are or are not in the portfolio
and how the construction of the portfolio was made.

2 DSS to Aid in the Selection of Public Project Portfolios

The decision support systems (DSS) are important tools because they allow users to
have a support on why they reached a decision. According to [1] a DSS is defined
as “an interactive computer-based system or subsystem intended to help decision
makers use communications technologies, data, documents, knowledge and/or
models to identify and solve problems, complete decision process tasks, and make
decisions”. It is a general term for any computer application that improves the
ability of a person or group of persons to make decisions. A DSS helps to retrieve,
summarize and analyze data relevant to the decision.
A Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support System … 743

A DSS for public project selection have different subsystems that work together
to support a decision maker, this article focuses mainly on the subsystem to gen-
erate recommendations in an interactive way.
The definition of the term “interactive”, taken from the Oxford Dictionary is:
“permit a flow of two-way information between a computer and a computer user.”
Furthermore, in the context of computer science, it is defined as the interaction with
a human user, usually in a conversational way to obtain data or commands and
provide immediate results or updates [2].
In this section, the proposed methodology to obtain explanations in public
project portfolios is detailed. Figure 1 shows the complete methodology, ranging
from obtaining information to the calculus of reduced decision rules. An overview
of the process is presented below:
1. First, we need to obtain the preferential information of the organization, these
preferences are necessary for the selection of the adequate multicriteria
algorithm.
2. With the correct selection of the multicriteria algorithm, using the preferential
information, we obtain the set of portfolios to be presented, which is reduced to
a subset in the region of interest of the DM.

Fig. 1 Proposed methodology for recommendation of project portfolio with reduced decision
rules
744 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

3. In the recommendation subsystem there are stored the possible portfolios for
recommendation to the DM, the selection of one of these portfolios is used to
generate reducts.
4. A transformation of the public portfolio instance to a decision table is made. The
solution generated from the multicriteria method is added at the end of the
original instance to act as a decision attribute, the original attributes will be the
condition attributes of the decision table.
5. This tabular representation is necessary to function with the rough set approach.
The reduct calculation is performed starting with the decision table with the
purpose of generation a reduced decision table using the reducts generated with
the genetic algorithm.
6. By means of an exact method, we work with the newly generated reduced
decision table to get the attributes of the rows decrement (value reduction). The
number of attributes is diminished, rule by rule (row by row), reducing the
quantity of clauses on each rule.
7. Using a small subset of rules on the projects in the portfolio (which projects are
supported and which ones are not), we can summarize the information about the
construction of the portfolio and verify how far is from the organization policy.
This decision is a critical problem the DM is faced with.
8. The process of recommending a justified portfolio can end when such a rec-
ommendation is presented to the DM. At this stage, he can make an intro-
spection when he sees the summary of the characteristics of the projects
conforming the recommended portfolio, and—based on such information-there
is a possibility that the DM is not satisfied with this portfolio. The DM can
update his preferences and make a revaluation of the attributes values of some
projects. The option to perform this updates is a work in progress, this process
must be repeated if the DM changes his preferences, an—hereby—a new jus-
tification (on how the new portfolio is constructed) is obtained.
9. The updated preferential information can be used to restart the process to re-run
the multicriteria algorithm.
The main contribution of this methodology is the reduction of attributes and the
simplification of decision rules by means of a hybrid algorithm, which consist of
two stages:
1. A genetic algorithm to generate reducts, and
2. An exhaustive calculation of the decision rules with an exact method, using the
reduced decision table generated by the genetic algorithm.
The argumentation theory comes into play when the final recommendation is
presented, within a dialog manager the DM and the framework can enter in an
interaction to justify the solution presented to him, if this solution satisfies his base
of preferences.
A Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support System … 745

Fig. 2 Argumentation theory

dialogue management
interactivity

The argumentation theory will be sustained with a knowledge database, as

shown in Fig. 2, which consists in a set of rules (locution, dialectic, commitment
and termination rules) necessary to make a valid interchange of arguments and
explain the recommendation. This type of dialog must be supported by a static and
dynamic knowledge base; the static part is composed by elements such as rules,
argument schemes and initial preferences; on the other hand, the dynamic part
consists on argument graphs and updated preferences.

3 Argumentation Theory for Decision Making

The decision making problems usually contain a huge amount of alternatives,

which makes it difficult to solve using only the human capabilities. Normally, to
reduce the complexity of the problem, recommendation systems are used to allow
the DM to see the best alternatives that suit his preferences are. These systems
attempt to create a user model and apply heuristics to anticipate what information
could be of interest [3].
We believe that a DSS will benefit from using the argumentation theory to
justify its recommendations. It is a growing field of artificial intelligence, related to
the process of constructing and evaluating arguments in order to justify conclu-
sions, providing a non-monotonic reasoning mechanism, which means that con-
clusions might change as more information is obtained [4].

3.1 Argumentation Schemes

The argumentation schemes, capture the stereotypical patterns of human reasoning,

especially the defeasible ones [5], the arguments are shown as general inference
746 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

rules, when given a set of premises a conclusion can be reached [6]. However,
because of the defeasible nature of the arguments, said schemes are not strictly
deductive. The schemes allow the arguments to be represented within a certain
context and take in consideration that the presented reasoning can be modified in
the light of new proof or rule exceptions.
The argumentation schemes are composed of the following elements:
• Premises: Arguments that works as either support or opposition of the
conclusion.
• Conclusion: Statement that is reached from analyzing the premises.
• Critical Questions: Attacks or challenges that weak the argument within the
scheme if they are not answered.
Another important point to consider within the argumentation theory is how the
statements are going to be evaluated, using a proof standard, allows comparing the
arguments made in favor and against a certain statement to evaluate if it holds true
or not [7]. However, every proof standard works in a different way, which means
that while some might consider a statement true others might not; it is important to
be careful when choosing which proof standard to use when evaluating a statement.

3.2 Dialogue System

The dialogue games (or dialogue systems) essentially define the principle of con-
sistent dialogue and conditions under which a statement made by an individual is
adequate. There are several formal dialogues, taking into account various infor-
mation such as the participants, the communication language, roles of participants,
the aim of the dialogue, etc. These types of dialogues system are generally sustained
by a set of rules:
• Locution Rules (speech acts, movements). The rules indicate which expressions
are allowed. Generally, legal phrases enable the participants to affirm proposi-
tions, allowing others to question or challenge the above statements, and allow
those affirmations that can be claimed, questioned or challenged to justify the
statement. The justifications may involve submitting a proof of the proposition
or an argument for it.
• Commitments Rules. Rules defining the effects of movements in the “commit-
ments”; associated with each player is a compromise to maintain the statements
that the players have made and the challenges they have issued; so there are
rules that define how the commitments are updated.
• Dialogue Rules. Rules to regulate movements. It specifies, for example, all the
acts of speech allowed in a dialogue and types of responses allowed at a certain
state. Various dialogue protocols can be found in the literature, especially for
persuasion [8] and negotiation [9, 10]
A Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support System … 747

• Termination rules. The rules that define the circumstances in which the dialogue
ends.
• Acceptability. In a process of argumentation, it is important to define (or eval-
uate) the status of arguments based on all the ways in which they interact. Thus,
the best or acceptable arguments must be identified at the end of the process of
argumentation.
Most arguments systems are based on the notion of acceptability as identified by
Dung [11], he has proposed an abstract framework for the argument which only
focuses on the definition of the status of the arguments. In this framework, the
acceptability of an argument depends on its membership to some sets, called
acceptable sets or extensions. In other words, the acceptability of the arguments is
defined without considering the internal structure of the arguments.

4 Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support

System

Based on Ouerdane [4] proposal, the recommendation system explained in this

document will work using a set of modules, these modules will allow the system to
implement the decision support, using a dialog game and argumentation schemes to
reach a conclusion that satisfies the DM. The four main modules of the interaction
module of the DSS can be seen in Fig. 3.

4.1 Proposed Framework Supported by the Argumentation

Theory and a Dialogue Game

In this section the modular diagram shown in Fig. 3 will be described in detail.
Load Instance: The system reads a file which provides the system with the
necessary information to generate a recommendation and start a dialogue game
between it and the user, the data that this module requires to permit the system to
continue its process are the following:
• Number of alternatives
• Number of criteria
• Weight of each criterion

Fig. 3 Modular diagram of the interaction module of the DSS

748 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

• Lexicographic order
• Performance table
• Number of solutions
• Solution matrix
Configuration: The system analyses the information obtained from the previous
process to determinate the initial configuration of elements such as locution rules,
the state transition diagram and which proof standard to use. This will allow the
system to generate an initial recommendation, that lets both it and the user start a
dialogue game.
Dialogue: In this process, the user and the system initialize an exchange of
arguments, supported by the argumentation schemes, in which the system will look
to convince the user to accept the recommendation established by it. However, the
user is also capable of rejecting the current recommendation or to manipulate the
initial configuration to force the system to generate a new recommendation, all
according to the user’s preferences.
Acceptation/Rejection of the Final Recommendation: The user can conclude if
the recommendation received is satisfactory or not to his needs, even if it is the best
possible solution available. This rejection option is established in consideration of
the human factor (the user) that will be in contact with the system. Since he doesn’t
follow a strict set of rules, the user could simply ignore the dialogue following the
initial recommendation and reject it as soon as it is shown, instead of searching for a
better solution.

4.2 Argumentation Schemes for the Interaction Module

Based on the work of Walton et al. [12], and Ouerdane [4], some argumentation
schemes were found to be useful for the system for its interaction process with the
user, the schemes presented in this section are formally described in [12].
The system requires defining a proof standard to create an initial recommen-
dation. It also needs to be capable of changing the proof standard on use based on
the information obtained in the interaction with the user. The abductive reasoning is
a process that allows the system to select from the set of proof standards the one that
is closer to the active properties. Said properties are defined both in the configu-
ration process and in the dialogue game. The argumentation scheme for the
abductive reasoning is shown in Table 1.
After choosing a proof standard, the system must generate a recommendation.
Two argumentation schemes have been identified that put the system as a capable
entity for this action. The argument from position to know (see Table 2) and the
argument from an expert opinion (see Table 3).
The argument from position to know is utilized during the initial recommen-
dation and a few states after that, as the system doesn’t have enough information yet
to be considered an expert for the instance that is being analyzed. The argument
A Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support System … 749

Table 1 Argumentation scheme for the abductive reasoning argument

Premises F is a finding or given set of facts
E is a satisfactory explanation of F
No alternative explanation E’ given so far is as satisfactory as E
Conclusion Therefore, F is plausible, as a hypothesis
Critical How satisfactory is E as an explanation of F, apart from the alternative
Questions explanations available so far in the dialogue?
How much better an explanation is E than the alternative explanations
available so far in the dialogue
How far has the dialogue progressed? If the dialogue is an inquiry, how
thorough has the investigation of the case been?
Would it be better to continue the dialogue further, instead of drawing a
conclusion at this point?

Table 2 Argumentation scheme for the argument from position to know

Premises Major premise: Source E is an expert in subject domain F containing
proposition A
Minor Premise: E asserts that proposition A is true (false)
Conclusion A is true (false)
Critical How credible is E as an expert source?
Questions Is E an expert in the field that A is in?
What did E assert that implies A?
Is E personally reliable as a source?
Is A consistent with what other expert assert?
Is E’s assertion based on evidence?

Table 3 Argumentation scheme for the argument from an expert opinion

Premises Major Premise: Source a is in position to know about things in a certain subject
domain S containing proposition A
Minor Premise: a asserts that A is true (false)
Conclusion A is true (false)
Critical Is a in position to know whether A is true (false)?
Questions Is a an honest (trustworthy, reliable) source?
Did a assert that A is true (false)?

from an expert opinion defines the system not only as capable of making a rec-
ommendation of high quality, but also confirms it as an expert of the current
instance as it has obtained enough information.
Several argumentation schemes were found to be useful for the system during
the interaction process that could be used to establish a coherent dialogue with the
user. These schemes allow the system to defend its recommendation or obtain new
information. The use of each of these schemes will be explained below.
750 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

Table 4 Argumentation scheme for the muticriteria pairwise evaluation

Premises Action a
Action b
A set of criteria h
There are enough supporting reasons SR
There are no sufficiently strong opposing reasons OR
Conclusion a is at least as good as b
Critical Are the reasons in SR strong enough to overcome the reasons in OR?
Question Is the difference between SR and OR big enough to accept the conclusion?

Table 5 Argumentation scheme for the practical argument from analogy

Premises The right thing to do in S1 was to carry out A
S2 is similar to S1
Conclusion Therefore, the right thing to do in S2 is carry out A
Critical Questions A really applies on S2?
Is there any other action for A that works better than S2?
Have S1 y S2 enough similarities?

Table 6 Argumentation scheme for the ad ignorantiam argument

Premises Major premise: If A were true, then A would be known to be true
Minor Premise: It is not the case that A is known to be true
Conclusion Therefore, A is not true
Critical Questions Is A known?
Are there proofs that A is false?

Multicriteria pairwise evaluation: The system must be able to compare the

recommendation with the other alternatives and explain why it is better than them
(see Table 4).
Practical argument from analogy: Since it is possible that two or more solutions
could have a certain degree of similitude, a set of actions that were used in the
previous alternatives could be used for new recommendations that are almost
similar (see Table 5).
Ad Ignorantiam: The system cannot generate inferences; therefore, it must only
consider the known information as true. Everything that is unknown for the system
must be considered false, even if this is considered a fallacy (see Table 6).
Cause-Effect: A change in the value of a criterion or property can lead to a
change in a process within the system; whether it is the proof standard or the
recommendation shown to the user (see Table 7).
Argument from bias: This fallacy must be considered because the user is not
always unbiased as he could have a preference over a certain criterion or alternative
(see Table 8).
A Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support System … 751

Table 7 Argumentation scheme for the cause-effect argument

Premises Major Premise: Generally, if A occurs, then B will (might) occur
Minor Premise: In this case, A occurs (might occur)
Conclusion Therefore, in this case, B will (might) occur
Critical How strong is the causal generalization?
Question Is the evidence cited (if there is any) strong enough to warrant the causal
generalization?
Are there other causal factors that could interfere with the production of the
effect in the given case?

Table 8 Argumentation scheme for the argument from bias

Premises Major premise: If x is biased, then x is less likely to have taken the evidence
on both sides into account in arriving at conclusion A
Minor Premise: Arguer a is biased
Conclusion Arguer a is less likely to have taken the evidence on both sides into account in
arriving at conclusion A
Critical What type of dialogue are the speaker and hearer supposed to be engaged in?
Question What evidence has been given to prove that the speaker is biased?

4.3 Argumentative Dialog Corpus

A dialogue corpus will be located in the dialogue module, it will permit the
characterization of the decision maker, allowing emulating him to make experi-
ments relevant to decision making.
In Fig. 4 the each of the modules for the interaction module can be seen in
greater detail; in the configuration module the premises, locution rules, state tran-
sition diagram and the proof standards are set.
Furthermore, in the dialog module the argumentation schemes and the corpus of
argumentative dialogue interact each other; criteria may be updated and the proofs
standard, according to different conditions that may occur in the dialogue. This
process is performed with the acceptance or rejection of the recommendation.
The architecture shown in Fig. 4 is based on the work of Querdane [4], she
presents a theoretical architecture for a recommendation system, but the imple-
mentation was not realized. The architecture of the recommendation system of this
work will change according to the context of this particular problem.
We present in Fig. 5, the architecture that show the interaction between the
different elements that are involved in the corpus dialogue; the DM preferences will
752 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

Fig. 4 Second layer of the modular diagram for the interaction module

Fig. 5 Architecture for the interaction in the recommendation system

A Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support System … 753

Fig. 6 Task diagram of the Interaction with the Corpus

play a very important role in the final decision; there are other elements that interact
such as PDA, arguments tree, the dialogue corpus, reference sets, work and so on,
they each other in the recommendation system, in order to help in the decision
making.
The proposal in this article covers the generation of argument trees, we are
building this generation based in the Araucaria software [13], and this software has
the distinction of generating an arguments tree with premises and conclusions
The recommendation system will generate an initial solution, this solution will
be verified against the preferences of the DM (these will be based on a PDA, linked
to a reference set), and the arguments corpus, which is a repository of dialogues
that characterize a DM, in order to construct an argument tree.
The recommended solution will be evaluated by the preference and argument
tree to provide an argument as conclusion, which will be determined by the actions
established in the state transition diagram (the user); from here, the interaction will
continue in the dialogue established between the system and the user.
A proposal for the argumentation corpus is shown on Fig. 6, it will be filled with
argumentative texts, then, it generates different argument trees [14]. These argu-
ment trees will characterize the DM, and interact with techniques to extract
information in the corpus, we can obtain a conclusion and generate new data to
construct arguments in the corpus.
Figure 7 shows a resume of the different tasks of the interaction process of the
expert and the simulated DM; the expert will generate a recommendation (solution),
if this solution matches the one with the arguments tree, to conclude if the solution
754 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

is within the data in the corpus, with that comparison, the artificial DM will gen-
erate an answer according to the state transition diagram and continue with the
interaction.

4.4 Development Status of the Interaction Module

In the Fig. 8 we show a screenshot of the prototype version of the recommendation

system, it contains a dropdown menu with the option of loading an instance and
starting the dialogue. The list shows the available actions in each phase of the state

Fig. 7 Process of interaction between the expert and the artificial DM

Fig. 8 Screenshot of the recommendation system

A Dialogue Interaction Module for a Decision Support System … 755

transition diagram. Finally, the text area located in the central part of the application
shows the dialog between the DM and the Expert.

5 Analysis and Future Work

The architecture introduced has been implemented in the Java programming lan-
guage. The current development has been focused on the initial configuration setup,
recommendation process, proof standard selection and acceptation or rejection of
the final recommendation. We have also worked on the update modules, for
properties and criterion values.
Two of the four main modules have been completed (Load instance and
acceptation/rejection of the final recommendation). However, the remaining mod-
ules (Configuration and Dialogue) are the most code-heavy processes of the system
and require more time to be developed.
Although some of the argumentation schemes and part of the interaction have
been already developed, it is necessary to keep working on those sections to have a
full working system, capable of generating high quality recommendations.
The argumentative dialogue corpus is in the final design, when completed, it will
be incorporated to interact with the argumentation schemes and continue with the
experimentation.

6 Conclusions

Under the conditions of uncertainty and vagueness, it is required an effective model

for justification that fits the nature of the problem and users.
The argumentation theory has a solid base for justifying arguments, serves as a
complement for a portfolio obtained with a multicriteria method, allowing
explaining why this option fits the DM model of preferences. This theory may help
with the cognitive capacity of the mind in relation to non-monotonic reasoning
which is commonly used by humans to make decisions.
The multicriteria methods for the generation of the initial recommendations has
been tested thoroughly, due this, we have confidence that the complementation of
the argumentation theory for justify this recommendation will be most adequate,
since it begins with a recommendation with a base of preferences.
Once completed the development, the DSS will be a tool to help Decision
Making of organizations to gain benefits such as money, time, by choosing the
portfolio with the most impact.

Acknowledgments We express our gratitude to CONACYT for partially financing this work.
756 L. Cruz-Reyes et al.

References

1. Power, D.: Decision Support Systems Resources – DSSResources.COM. [online]

Dssresources.com. Available at: http://dssresources.com/ (Accessed 18 Jul. 2015).
2. Mousseau, V., & Stewart, T.: Progressive methods in multiple criteria decision analysis
(Doctoral dissertation, PhD Thesis, Université Du Luxemburg) (2007).
3. Resnick, P., & Varian, H. R.: Recommender systems. Communications of the ACM, 40(3),
56-58 (1997).
4. Ouerdane, W.: Multiple criteria decision aiding: a dialectical perspective (Doctoral
dissertation, Université Paris-Dauphine) (2009).
5. Walton, D.: Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer Science &
Business Media (2005).
6. Walton, D.: Argumentation schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J., Erlbaum
(1996).
7. T. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of
proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(4):875–896 (2007).
8. Prakken,H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation.
Synthese, 127:187–219 (2001).
9. Parsons S., Sierra C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of
Logic and Computation, 8(3):261–292 (1998).
10. Amgoud L., Parsons S., Maudet N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In W. Horn,
editor, Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’00), pages
338–342. IOS Press. (2000)
11. Dung, P. M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic
Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–358
(1995).
12. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press
(2008).
13. Reed,C.: Araucaria 3.1 User Manual, http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/, (2004).
14. Botley, S. P., & Hakim, F. (2014). ARGUMENT STRUCTURE IN LEARNER WRITING:
A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS USING ARGUMENT MAPPING. Kajian Malaysia, 32(1),
45 (2014).