Abstract
This paper reviews the history of AI & Law research from the perspective of argument schemes. It starts with the observation that logic, although very well applicable to legal reasoning when there is uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement, is too abstract to give a fully satisfactory classification of legal argument types. It therefore needs to be supplemented with an argument-scheme approach, which classifies arguments not according to their logical form but according to their content, in particular, according to the roles that the various elements of an argument can play. This approach is then applied to legal reasoning, to identify some of the main legal argument schemes. It is also argued that much AI & Law research in fact employs the argument-scheme approach, although it usually is not presented as such. Finally, it is argued that the argument-scheme approach and the way it has been employed in AI & Law respects some of the main lessons to be learnt from Toulmin’s The Uses of Argument.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aleven, V.: 1997, Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models, PhD Thesis, The University of Pittsburgh
K. D. Ashley (1990) Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals MIT Press Cambridge, MA
Atkinson, K., T. J. M. Bench-Capon and P. McBurney: 2005, `Arguing About Cases as Practical Reasoning’, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law. pp. 35–44, ACM Press, New York
T. J. M. Bench-Capon (2003) ArticleTitle‘Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks’ Journal of Logic and Computation 13 429–448 Occurrence Handle10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
T. J. M. Bench-Capon G. Sartor (2003) ArticleTitle‘A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values’ Artificial Intelligence 150 97–143 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5
P. Bergman (1997) Trial Advocacy in a Nutshell EditionNumber3rd West Publishing Co St. Paul, MN
Berman D. H. and C. D. Hafner: 1987, `Indeterminacy: A Challenge to Logic-Based Models of Legal Reasoning’, in Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology, Vol. 3, pp. 1–35, Butterworths, London
F. J. Bex H. Prakken C. Reed D. N. Walton (2003) ArticleTitle‘Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 125–165 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a
Branting L. K.: 2003, ‘An Agenda for Empirical Research In AI and Law’, in Workshop Notes of the ICAIL-2003 Workshop on Evaluation of Legal Reasoning and Problem-Solving Systems, pp. 28–35, Edinburgh, UK
M. C. Bromby M. J. J. Hall (2002) ‘The Development and Rapid Evaluation of the Knowledge Model of Advokate: An Advisory System to Assess the Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony’ T. J. M. Bench-Capon A. Daskalopulu R. G. F. Winkels (Eds) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference IOS Press Amsterdam 143–152
A. Gardner Lieth ParticleVon der (1987) An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning MIT Press Cambridge, MA
B. Garssen (2001) ‘Argument Schemes’ F. H. Eemeren Particlevan (Eds) Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory Amsterdam University Press Amsterdam 81–99
T. F. Gordon (1995) The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht/Boston/London
Gordon, T. F.: 2003, ‘Artificial Intelligence Models of Legal Argumentation’, Tutorial notes Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, UK
J. C. Hage (1997) Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht/Boston/London
J. F. Horty (2001) ‘Nonmonotonic Logic’ L. Goble (Eds) The Backwell Guide to Philosophical Logic Blackwell Publishers Oxford 336–361
J. B. Kadane D. A. Schum (1996) A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence John Wiley & Sons New York
R. P. Loui J. Norman (1995) ArticleTitle‘Rationales and Argument Moves’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 159–189
Lutomski, L. S.: 1989, ‘The Design of an Attorney’s Statistical Consultant’, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 224–233, ACM Press, New York
J. L. Pollock (1995) Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person MIT Press Cambridge, MA
H. Prakken (2002) ArticleTitle‘An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case-Based Reasoning’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 113–133 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1019536206548
H. Prakken (2004) ArticleTitle‘Analysing Reasoning About Evidence with Formal Models of Argumentation’ Law, Probability & Risk 3 33–50
Prakken, H., C. Reed and D. N. Walton: 2003, `Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about Evidence’, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 32–41, ACM Press, New York
H. Prakken G. Sartor (1996) ArticleTitle‘A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 331–368
H. Prakken G. Sartor (1998) ArticleTitle‘Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 231–287 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008278309945
H. Prakken G. Sartor (2002) ‘The Role of Logic In Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey’ A. Kakas F. Sadri (Eds) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. Essays In Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2048 Berlin 342–380
H. Prakken G. A. W. Vreeswijk (2002) ‘Logics for Defeasible Argumentation ’ D. Gabbay F. Guenthner (Eds) Handbook of Philosophical Logic EditionNumber2 NumberInSeriesVol. 4 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht/Boston/London 219–318
D. B. Skalak E. L. Rissland (1992) ArticleTitle‘Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 3–44 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00118477
S. E. Toulmin (1958) The Uses of Argument Cambridge University Press Cambridge
S. E. Toulmin (2003) The Uses of Argument EditionNumber2nd Cambridge University Press Cambridge
B. Verheij (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat Doctoral Dissertation University of Maastricht The Netherlands
Verheij, B.: 2001, ‘Legal Decision Making as Dialectical Theory Construction with Argumentation Schemes’ (research abstract), in Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 225–226, ACM Press, New York
B. Verheij (2003) ArticleTitle‘Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach To Legal Logic’ Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 167–195
D. N. Walton (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prakken, H. AI & Law, Logic and Argument Schemes. Argumentation 19, 303–320 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4418-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4418-7