  Given an argumentation framework AF, we introduce a mapping function that
constructs a disjunctive logic program P, such that the preferred extensions of
AF correspond to the stable models of P, after intersecting each stable model
with the relevant atoms. The given mapping function is of polynomial size
w.r.t. AF. In particular, we identify that there is a direct relationship
between the minimal models of a propositional formula and the preferred
extensions of an argumentation framework by working on representing the
defeated arguments. Then we show how to infer the preferred extensions of an
argumentation framework by using UNSAT algorithms and disjunctive stable model
solvers. The relevance of this result is that we define a direct relationship
between one of the most satisfactory argumentation semantics and one of the
most successful approach of non-monotonic reasoning i.e., logic programming
with the stable model semantics.
