Interpretive Reasoning with Hypothetical Cases
نویسنده
چکیده
Reasoning with hypothetical cases helps decision-makers evaluate alternate hypotheses for deciding a case. The hypotheticals demonstrate the sensitivity of a hypothesis to apparently small factual differences that may require different results because they shift the tradeoffs among conflicting underlying principles. By anticipating variations, the decision-maker seeks to formulate as general and robust a hypothesis as possible. This paper presents a model of the role of hypothetical cases in assessing legal hypotheses and illustrates it with examples drawn from a Supreme Court oral argument. It describes the LARGO program, an intelligent tutoring system to help law students learn the model by graphically representing complex argument examples. LARGO analyzes students’ graphs and provides feedback to encourage them to reflect on the examples in light of the model. 1
منابع مشابه
Hypothesis Formation and Testing in Legal Argument
Formulating hypotheses about natural phenomena and testing them against empirical data have long been cornerstones of the natural sciences. As a cognitive framework, hypothesis formation and testing also play important roles in mathematical discovery and in legal reasoning, especially as illustrated in oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court. A hypothesis is a tentative assumption...
متن کاملGuest Editors’ Introduction Case4ased Reasoning
RE ASONING IN ARTIFICIAL INtelligence has traditionally involved writing and customizing rules or models to solve problems. But there is another paradigm that has proven effective in many experimental and applied systems: Casebased reasoning “remembers” previous problems and either adapts their solutions or uses their outcomes to evaluate new cases. There are two kinds of case-based reasoners: ...
متن کاملA case study of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases
This paper studies the use of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases concerning the United States Fourth Amendment. Drawing upon formal AI & Law models of legal argument a semi-formal reconstruction is given of parts of the Carney case, which has been studied previously in AI & law research on case-based reasoning. The result is compared with Rissland’s (1989) analysis...
متن کاملReasoning with Textual Cases
Abstract. This paper presents methods that support automatically finding abstract indexing concepts in textual cases and demonstrates how these cases can be used in an interpretive CBR system to carry out case-based argumentation and prediction from text cases. We implemented and evaluated these methods in SMILE+IBP, which predicts the outcome of legal cases given a textual summary. Our approac...
متن کاملGeological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science
The standard account of the reasoning process within geology views it as lacking a distinctive methodology of its own. Rather, geology is described as a derivative science, relying on the logical techniques exemplified by physics. I argue that this account is inadequate and skews our understanding of both geology and the scientific process in general. Far from simply taking up and applying the ...
متن کامل