\section{Conclusions and future work} 
 
The complete CBP we present keeps the desirable properties of non-manipulability  
and it can be modified to preserve unanimity on the premises. What can be considered a shortcoming of the procedure is that it may select more than one premise judgment set to support the collective conclusion. Such ``ties" in the output from aggregation are known to be resolved with an additional approval vote \cite{Brams2004}  or by random selection. A random selection is not a desirable tie-breaking solution in cases when the decisions on premises can influence some future decision making process. The approval voting requires more information to be injected in the framework and opens the questions of what incentives an agent may have to prefer one premise judgment set over another.  

 

In future work we plan to investigate the relevance that current group decisions can have on future decisions. 
This ``evolutionary" impact over the decision making process has been an important issue in the work that gave rise to the interest in judgment aggregation \cite{KS86,KS93}, but it has fallen out of scope in the more formal study of judgment aggregation. 
 

 

