Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions

View through CrossRef
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.
Title: Argumentation Schemes for Reasoning about Factors with Dimensions
Description:
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.

Related Results

Approaching the Construction of Arguments in Postgraduate Education Programs
Approaching the Construction of Arguments in Postgraduate Education Programs
Constructing arguments, applying logical reasoning, and developing intellectual skills are fundamental to academic success in postgraduate education and qualitative research. The s...
Phys’AR as a Learning Innovation: Strengthening Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in Applied Physics
Phys’AR as a Learning Innovation: Strengthening Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in Applied Physics
Critical thinking and argumentation are essential twenty-first-century skills in physics education. Yet, conventional teaching methods often fail to provide students with sufficien...
Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey
Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey
AbstractArgumentation and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) are closely related, as in the recent years, Argumentation has been used for providing Explainability to AI. Arg...
Optimisation in Neurosymbolic Learning Systems
Optimisation in Neurosymbolic Learning Systems
In the last few years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has reached the public consciousness through high-profile applications such as chatbots, image generators, speech synthesis and ...
Modular Argumentation For Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract
Modular Argumentation For Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract
To create a programming environment in which autonomous agents could be built to resolve contract disputes, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation (ABA) into mod...
Kettle logic in abstract argumentation
Kettle logic in abstract argumentation
Abstract Kettle logic is a colloquial term that describes an agent’s advancement of inconsistent arguments in order to defeat a particular claim. Intuitively, a cons...
Justification of Argumentation Schemes
Justification of Argumentation Schemes
Argumentation schemes are forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, especially defeasible ones like argument from expert opinion, that have proved t...

Back to Top