Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals
Modelling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals
Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument
ICAIL '89 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies - AI and legal reasoning. Part 1
Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link
ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals
Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals
Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation
Visualizing argumentation
Collaborative Representations: Supporting Face-to-Face and Online Knowledge-Building Discourse
HICSS '01 Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ( HICSS-34)-Volume 4 - Volume 4
A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values
Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation
Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on AI and law
Dialogues about the burden of proof
ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Argumentation and standards of proof
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
Evaluating Legal Argument Instruction with Graphical Representations Using LARGO
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work
Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques
ITS'06 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Argumentation with Value JudgmentsAn Example of Hypothetical Reasoning
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2010: The Twenty-Third Annual Conference
Hi-index | 0.00 |
The research described here explores the idea of using Supreme Court oral arguments as pedagogical examples in first year classes to help students learn the role of hypothetical reasoning in law. The article presents examples of patterns of reasoning with hypotheticals in appellate legal argument and in the legal classroom and a process model of hypothetical reasoning that relates them to work in cognitive science and Artificial Intelligence. The process model describes the relationships between an advocate's proposed test for deciding a case or issue, the facts of the hypothetical and of the case to be decided, and the often conflicting legal principles and policies underlying the issue. The process model of hypothetical reasoning has been partially implemented in a computerized teaching environment, LARGO ("Legal ARgument Graph Observer") that helps students identify, analyze, and reflect on episodes of hypothetical reasoning in oral argument transcripts. Using LARGO, students reconstruct examples of hypothetical reasoning in the oral arguments by representing them in simple diagrams that focus students on the proposed test, the hypothetical challenge to the test, and the responses to the challenge. The program analyzes the diagrams and provides feedback to help students complete the diagrams and reflect on the significance of the hypothetical reasoning in the argument. The article reports the results of experiments evaluating instruction of first year law students at the University of Pittsburgh using the LARGO program as applied to Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases. The learning results so far have been mixed. Instruction with LARGO has been shown to help law student volunteers with lower LSAT scores learn skills and knowledge regarding hypothetical reasoning better than a text-based approach, but not when the students were required to participate. On the other hand, the diagrams students produce with LARGO have been shown to have some diagnostic value, distinguishing among law students on the basis of LSAT scores, posttest performance, and years in law school. This lends support to the underlying model of hypothetical argument and suggests using LARGO as a pedagogically diagnostic tool.