摘要：This paper examines three experimental paradigms, designed for common sense reasoning. The comparison regards the effect disablers and alternatives exercise on the data. It was previously shown that alternatives and disablers influence the reasoning process in the three experimental paradigms: the Inference paradigm (e.g., Cummins et al., 1991), the Suppression paradigm (e.g., Byrne, 1989) and the Belief Revision paradigm (e.g., Elio, 1997). However, they were never directly compared due to large variations in the pragmatic type of conditionals and in the answer format. With this paper, we hope to fill this gap as we provide a direct comparison of the paradigms to gain more insight in reasoning with inconsistencies.
