We focus on an argument scheme explaining a necessary decision with respect to a jurisprudence considering the non compensatory sorting model. In this model, a set of candidates is sorted in two ordered categories by a set of points of view expressing an individual preference over the set of candidates. Candidates are ranked in the upper category if they are accepted by a sufficient subset of points of view. We show that the argument scheme is an approximation of this model and share some counterintuitive results concerning the relative performance of some well-known solvers.