English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper presents a computational model for attacking legal arguments. Assume that, for a case with which we are concerned, an opponent side has constructed a legal argument based on  analogical  interpretation of a statute. In our model, the argument is attacked by pointing out the incoherence of the analogical interpretation of the statute. To examine such incoherence, we create a hypothetical case  C'  that is  similar  to the case in question, with the help of a  Goal-Dependent Abstraction  framework. Intuitively speaking, we create  C'  based on a similarity that is  consistent  with the similarity based on which the opponent's analogical interpretation has been made. Therefore, we can reasonably consider from the viewpoint of legal stability that the statute should be analogically interpreted to apply it to  C'  if we accept the opponent's interpretation. The incoherence of the analogical interpretation can be examined by finding a precedent in which the statute has been applied to  C'  based on  complete  interpretation. It should be noted that a legal argument based on complete interpretation of the statute has a conclusion that is  opposite  to that of the argument based on analogical interpretation. Therefore, if we find such a precedent, we attack the opponent's argument by pointing out the incoherence of interpretation of the statute and presenting a counterargument having the opposite conclusion.

Attacking Legal Argument by Pointing Out the Incoherence of Interpretation of Statute