  In this paper, we provide more evidence for the contention that logical
consequence should be understood in normative terms. Hartry Field and John
MacFarlane covered the classical case. We extend their work, examining what it
means for an agent to be obliged to infer a conclusion when faced with
uncertain information or reasoning within a non-monotonic, defeasible, logical
framework (which allows e. g. for inference to be drawn from premises
considered true unless evidence to the contrary is presented).
