Formal argumentation aims to provide a structured framework for cognitively compatible automated reasoning in the context of artificial intelligence; however, due to its roots in mathematical logic, formal argumentation research is typically focused on formal, ‘object-level’ aspects. It has yet to be studied how environmental, ‘meta-level’ structures, can affect human intuitions regarding the formalized model. To bridge this gap, we examined whether bold text used in visualization of argumentation frameworks, the core structures of formal argumentation,affects human assessment of the acceptability of the arguments and the confidence in the assessment. 48 participants divided into four condition groups evaluated the acceptability of four sets of arguments with simple and simplified floating reinstatement. We put different arguments(or none) into bold print to nudge a decision (and to form a control group, respectively). The results show limited evidence in favor of bold text having an increasing effect on the acceptability of the topic argument but no significant changes in the confidence in the answer. A replication study with a larger sample size is warranted to increase confidence in the results.