A Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals

This paper presents a process model of arguing with hypotheticals and uses it to explain examples of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court that are like those employed in Socratic law teaching. The process model has been partially implemented in the LARGO (Legal ARgument Graph Observer) intelligent tutoring system. The program supports students in diagramming oral argument examples; its feedback on students' diagrammatic reconstructions of the examples enforces the expectations of the process model. The paper presents empirical evidence that features of the argument diagrams made with LARGO are correlated with independent measures of argumentation ability. The examples and empirical results support the model's explanatory and diagnostic utility.

[1]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  What Do Argument Diagrams Tell Us About Students ’ Aptitude Or Experience ? A Statistical Analysis In An Ill-Defined Domain ∗ , 2008 .

[2]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Thomas F. Gordon.  Visualizing Carneades argument graphs , 2007 .

[4]  Jules Aldous,et al.  Legal Studies , 2010 .

[5]  Paul Gerwirtz,et al.  The Jurisprudence of Hypotheticals. , 1982 .

[6]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[7]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Re-evaluating LARGO in the Classroom: Are Diagrams Better Than Text for Teaching Argumentation Skills? , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[9]  S. E. Newman,et al.  Pushing Toulmin Too Far: Learning From an Argument Representation Scheme , 1998 .

[10]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument , 1988, ICAIL '89.

[11]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Learning by diagramming Supreme Court oral arguments , 2007, ICAIL.

[12]  I. Lakatos.  PROOFS AND REFUTATIONS (I)*† , 1963, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[13]  Prettyman,et al.  The Supreme Court's Use of Hypothetical Questions at Oral Argument , 1984 .

[14]  O. J. Tans.  The Fluidity of Warrants: Using the Toulmin Model to Analyse Practical Discourse , 2006, Arguing on the Toulmin Model.

[15]  S. Brewer,et al.  Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy , 1996 .

[16]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Modeling legal argument - reasoning with cases and hypotheticals , 1991, Artificial intelligence and legal reasoning.

[17]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation and standards of proof , 2007, ICAIL.

[18]  Burton A. Bargerstock,et al.  THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING. , 1910, Science.

[19]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Graph Grammars: An ITS Technology for Diagram Representations , 2008, FLAIRS Conference.

[20]  M. Eisenberg.  The nature of the common law , 1988 .

[21]  S. Hurley,et al.  Coherence, Hypothetical Cases, and Precedent , 1990 .

[22]  Hugo Cesar Hoeschl,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Law , 2004, AIAI.

[23]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.