Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning

Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):1-28 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper points out some problems with two recent logical systems – one due to Prakken and Sartor, the other due to Kowalski and Toni – designedfor the representation of defeasible arguments in general, but with a specialemphasis on legal reasoning.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1023/a:1011288805074

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,154

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Henry Prakken (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. A study of defeasible reasoning in law.Bart Verheij - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):35-65.
Henry Prakken, logical tools for modelling legal argument: A study of defeasible reasoning in law. [REVIEW]L. M. M. Royakkers - 2000 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):379-387.
Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law.Robert Alexy - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (1):65-72.
Henry Prakken (1997), Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. [REVIEW]Robert Alexy - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (1):65-72.
Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations. [REVIEW]Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Defeasibility in Law.Giovanni Sartor - 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. 315-364.
Why non-monotonic logic is inadequate to represent balancing arguments.Jan-R. Sieckmann - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):211-219.
Prakken Henry. Logical tools for modelling legal argument. A study of defeasible reasoning in law. Law and philosophy library, vol. 32. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1997, xiii + 314 pp. [REVIEW]R. P. Loui - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (4):1840-1841.
Defeasible reasoning in japanese criminal jurisprudence.Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
113 (#187,875)

6 months
10 (#381,237)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Horty
University of Maryland, College Park

Citations of this work

Defaults with Priorities.John Horty - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (4):367-413.
Moral particularism in the light of deontic logic.Xavier Parent - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):75-98.
Arguing about constitutive and regulative norms.Gabriella Pigozzi & Leendert van der Torre - 2018 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 28 (2-3):189-217.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Defeasible Reasoning.John L. Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.
Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1997 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):25-75.

View all 10 references / Add more references