Annotation

Annotation: The purpose of the work is to describe the methodology for applying argumentation to justify the performance of algorithms. It is shown that the expediency of using argumentation appears when the logical scheme does not allow answering the question about the validity of the algorithm. It is shown that the argumentation scheme is the substantiation of the algorithm, but is not the algorithm itself. The types of argumentation used for the analysis of algorithms are briefly described. A comparison of logical and formal argumentation is given. The basis of the methodology based on formal argumentation is Dung's argumentation. Three variants of argumentation are given to substantiate new algorithms. The first option arises when a known algorithm is extended into a new algorithm by using a new conflict-free subset of the algorithm. The second option takes place when comparing the new and proven algorithms. The third variant of the reasoned substantiation of the algorithm takes place, with a single inclusion of operators in a known algorithm, provided that it does not conflict with the rest of the algorithm. The expediency of applying the method is described.