Teaching a process model of legal argument with hypotheticals

Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):321-370 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,061

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law.Trevor Bench-Capon & Henry Prakken - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
Defeasible reasoning in japanese criminal jurisprudence.Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
Precedent and Legal Analogy.Kevin D. Ashley - 2011 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag. pp. 673-710.
Legal Reasoning and Argumentation.Douglas Walton - 2011 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag. pp. 47-75.
Hard cases: A procedural approach. [REVIEW]Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-11-11

Downloads
68 (#292,266)

6 months
4 (#1,209,293)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The Uses of Argument.Stephen Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Philosophy 34 (130):244-245.
Engineering ethics: concepts and cases.Charles Edwin Harris, Michael S. Pritchard & Michael Jerome Rabins - 2009 - Boston, MA: Cengage. Edited by Michael S. Pritchard, Ray W. James, Elaine E. Englehardt & Michael J. Rabins.
Proofs and refutations (IV).I. Lakatos - 1963 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14 (56):296-342.

View all 20 references / Add more references