to note that argumentation-based choice does not necessarily imply choice from a set of goods or indeed any type of scenario that is typical for economic decision-making examples, but can cover any decision-making process, for example the selection of epistemic arguments from an argumentation framework that an agent will consider as valid.

As an example, let us consider the choice process of a family that wants to purchase a car. The local car dealer has a limited selection of cars $AR = \{volvo, polo, porsche\}$. As the family prefers a safe car with reasonable purchase and maintenance costs, the attacks can be specified as $Attacks = \{(volvo, polo), (volvo, porsche), (polo, porsche)\}$, which gives us the following argumentation framework $AF$: $$\begin{aligned}
        AF&{} = (\\
        &{} \quad  \{volvo, polo, porsche\} , \\
        &{} \quad \{(volvo, polo), (volvo, porsche), (polo, porsche)\})
    \end{aligned}$$ Solving the framework, using–for example–complete semantics, returns $\{\{volvo\}\}$. Consequently, given skeptical complete semantics $\sigma^{\cap}_c$, the argumentation-based choice function $g^{i} \circ \sigma^{\cap}_c(AF)$ returns $\{volvo\}$, which implies (given an economically rational family) $\forall A \in 2^{\{volvo, polo, porsche\}}: \{volvo\} \succeq A$; even if presented with a choice from a larger set $AR' \supset AR$ these preferences need to hold.

As a slightly 