<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W00-1407">
  <Title>A Strategy for Generating Evaluative Arguments ..</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="47" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
Abstract
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We propose an argumentation strategy for generating evaluative arguments that can be applied in systems serving as personal assistants or advisors. By following guidelines from argumentation theory and by employing a quantitative model of the user's preferences, the strategy generates arguments that are tailored to the user, properly arranged and concise. Our proposal extends the scope of previous approaches both in terms of types of arguments generated, and in terms of compliance with principles from argumentation theory.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Introduction Arguing involves an intentional communicative act that attempts to create, change or reinforce the beliefs and attitudes of another person.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Factual and causal arguments attempt to affect beliefs (i.e. assessments that something is or is not the case), whereas evaluative arguments attempt to affect attitudes (i.e., evaluative tendencies typically phrased in terms of like and dislike or favor and disfavor).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> With the ever growing use of the Web, an increasing number of systems that serve as personal assistants, advisors, or sales assistants are becoming available online ~. These systems frequently need to generate evaluative arguments for domain entities. For instance, a real-estate assistant may need to compare two houses, arguing that one would be a better choice than the other for its user.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Argumentation theory (Mayberry and Golden 1996; Miller and Levine 1996; Corbett and Connors 1999) indicates that effective arguments should be constructed tbllowing three  general principles. First, arguments should be constructed considering the dispositions of the audience towards the information presented.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Second, sub-arguments supporting or opposing the main argument claim should be carefully arranged by considering their strength of support or opposition. Third, effective arguments should be concise, presenting only pertinent and cogent information.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> In this paper, we propose an argumentation strategy for generating evaluative arguments that can be applied in systems serving as personal assistants or advisors. By following principles and guidelines from argumentation theory and by employing a quantitative model of the user's preference, our strategy generates evaluative arguments that are tailored to the user, properly arranged and concise.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Although a preliminary version of our argumentative strategy was cursorily described in a previous short paper (Carenini and Moore 1999), this paper includes several additional contributions. First, we discuss how the strategy is grounded in the argumentation literature.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Then, we provide details on the measures of argument strength and importance used in selecting and ordering argument support. Next, we generalize the argumentative strategy and correct some errors in its preliminary version. Finally, we discuss how our strategy extends the scope of previous approaches to generating evaluative arguments in terms of coverage (i.e., types of arguments), and in terms of compliance with principles from argumentation theory.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> Because of space limitations, we only discuss' previous work on generating evaluative arguments, rather than previous work on generating arguments in general.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> See llbr instance www.activebuyersguide.com</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>