Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions
نویسندگان
چکیده
In previous work we presented argumentation schemes to capture the CATO and value based theory construction approaches to reasoning with legal cases with factors. We formalised the schemes with ASPIC+, a formal representation of instantiated argumentation. In ASPIC+ the premises of a scheme may either be a factor provided in a knowledge base or established using a further argumentation scheme. Thus far we have taken the factors associated with cases to be given in the knowledge base. While this is adequate for expressing factor based reasoning, we can further investigate the justifications for the relationship between factors and facts or evidence. In this paper we examine how dimensions as used in the HYPO system can provide grounds on which to argue about which factors should apply to a case. By making this element of the reasoning explicit and subject to argument, we advance our overall account of reasoning with legal cases and make it more robust.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation Corner A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+
In this article we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalized as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and th...
متن کاملA formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+
In this paper we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalised as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and then...
متن کاملQuestions, Arguments, and Natural Language Semantics
Computational models of argumentation can be understood to bridge between human and automated reasoning. Argumentation schemes represent stereotypical, defeasible reasoning patterns. Critical questions are associated with argumentation schemes and are said to attack arguments. The paper highlights several issues with the current understanding of critical questions in argumentation. It provides ...
متن کاملSolving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes
In this paper, we look at reasoning with evidence and facts in criminal cases. We show how this reasoning may be analysed in a dialectical way by means of critical questions that point to typical sources of doubt. We discuss critical questions about the evidential arguments adduced, about the narrative accounts of the facts considered, and about the way in which the arguments and narratives are...
متن کاملAbstract Argumentation Scheme Frameworks
Argumentation Scheme Frameworks Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 3BX UK {K.M.Atkinson,tbc}@liverpool.ac.uk Abstract. This paper presents an approach to modelling and reasoning about arguments that exploits and combines two of the most popular mechanisms used within computational modelling of argumentation: argumentation s...
متن کامل