 In  Section 2.1.1,  we considered an analogue of conditionalization for nonmonotonic logic. All the same objections apply equally well in the context of belief revision. Recall from  Section 1.2  that a deductive consequence relation admits a deduction theorem iff \(\Delta \cup \{ \alpha\} \vdash \beta\) implies that \(\Delta \vdash \alpha\rightarrow \beta.\) So long as a deduction theorem is provable for \(\Cn(\cdot),\) Inclusion and Conditionalization are equivalent. If you found any of the arguments against Conditionalization convincing, you ought to be skeptical of Inclusion.