In this paper, we study how cautious conclusions should be taken when considering interval-valued propositional logic, that is logic where to each formula is associated a real-valued interval providing imprecise information about the penalty incurred for falsifying this formula. We work under the general assumption that the weights of falsified formulas are aggregated through a non-decreasing commutative function, and that an interpretation is all the more plausible as it is less penalized. We then formulate some dominance notions, as well as properties that such notions should follow if we want to draw conclusions that are at the same time informative and cautious. We then discuss the dominance notions in light of such properties.