  In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation
under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and
computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level
rather than on the argument-level, while under certain natural restrictions
(arguments with the same claims have the same outgoing attacks) these
properties are conserved. We now investigate these effects when, in addition,
preferences have to be taken into account and consider four prominent
reductions to handle preferences between arguments. As we shall see, these
reductions give rise to different classes of claim-augmented argumentation
frameworks, and behave differently in terms of semantic properties and
computational complexity. This strengthens the view that the actual choice for
handling preferences has to be taken with care.
