Henry Prakken (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. A study of defeasible reasoning in law
Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1) (2000)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDouglas Walton (2008). A Dialogical Theory of Presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Carlos Iván Chesñevar & Guillermo Ricardo Simari (2007). Modelling Inference in Argumentation Through Labelled Deduction: Formalization and Logical Properties. Logica Universalis 1 (1).
Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Henry Prakken (2008). Formalising Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):333-359.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
John F. Horty (2001). Argument Construction and Reinstatement in Logics for Defeasible Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1).
L. M. M. Royakkers (2000). Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):379-387.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #275,053 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
