We briefly discuss and compare two frameworks for reasoning with inconsistent belief bases: argumentation systems, based on the construction and selection of acceptable arguments in favor of a conclusion, and syntax-based approaches to non-monotonic entailment, based on the selection of preferred consistent subbases. In the case of a flat belief base (i.e. without any priority between its elements), we show that most of the argument-based inference relations can be exactly restated in the framework of syntax-based entailment. Then, taking advantage of the modelling of prioritized syntax-based entailment, we propose a methodological approach to the integration of preference orderings in argumentation frameworks.