Relative to the set the arguments in Figure 11 (A , B , and C ), argument C is necessarily IN, since no defeater questions its status. Therefore, argument B is OUT (having a defeater, namely A, which is IN). Consequently, argument A is IN, since it has no defeater which is IN. This is the only assignment of IN and OUT labels that is consistent with rules (1) and (2). Consequently, A is justified, and so is its conclusion (John is liable), B is overruled, and C is justified.
This example shows the connection between dialectics and nonmonotonicity. By introducing new arguments into an argument framework (typically, the set of the arguments proposed in a debate or constructible from a given set of premises), the status of the pre-existing arguments may change relative to that framework: arguments that were justified can now be overruled and arguments that were overruled can now be justified.
Rules (1) and (2) above fail to univocally determine the status of those arguments in cases where we have an unresolved conflict (see Figure 13, which depicts the divergent opinions of two experts).