Abstract

The axioms adopted by Packard (1981) and Heiner and Packard (1983) for plausibility ranking of sets of statements are critically examined. It is shown that the informational requirement of the Heiner-Packard (1983) framework is much stronger than Packard's (1981) framework and hence both axiomatic setups are examined separately. A characterization of the leximin rule is provided in Packard's framework and the nonintuitive implications of the Heiner-Packard (1983) axioms are discussed. It is also demonstrated that in both frameworks, minor variations of some of the axioms convert the characterization results into logical impossibilities.