How much logical structure is helpful in content-based argumentation software for legal case solving?

ABSTRACT

Current argumentation support software often employs graphical representations of logical relationships. Little is known about the extent to which logical structuring helps to increase a user's task performance. In this research, various levels of graphical representation of the logical structure of legal subject matter are experimentally compared in terms of performance. It is shown that logical structuring significantly increases task performance, but we have found no evidence that the extensive representation of logical structure as employed by several contemporary software applications is more effective or usable than a simplified graphical representation that was previously implemented in an application called ArguGuide.

REFERENCES

• 1: Chad S. Carr, Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation, Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, Springer-Verlag, London, 2003
• 2: Paul A. Kirschner , Simon J. Buckingham Shum , Chad S. Carr, Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, Springer-Verlag, London, 2003
• 3: Niels Pinkwart , Collin Lynch , Kevin Ashley , Vincent Aleven, Re-evaluating LARGO in the Classroom: Are Diagrams Better Than Text for Teaching Argumentation Skills?, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, June 23-27, 2008, Montreal, Canada [doi>10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_14]
• 4: Patricia Schank , Michael Ranney, Improved reasoning with Convince Me, Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, p.276-277, May 07-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado, United States [doi>10.1145/223355.223672]
• 5: Maaike Schweers , Bart Verheij, Beyond boxes and arrows: argumentation support in terms of the knowledge structure of a legal topic, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, p.109-118, June 15, 2007
• 6: Van den Braak, S. W., Van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H.,&Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006). A Critical Review of Argument Visualization Tools: Do Users Become Better Reasoners? Workshop Notes of the Ecai-06 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (Cmna-06) (eds. F. Grasso, R. Kibble&C. Reed), 67--75.
• 7: Susan W. van den Braak , Herre van Oostendorp , Henry Prakken , Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk, Representing narrative and testimonial knowledge in sense-making software for crime analysis, Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, p.160-169, July 08, 2008
• 8: Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual Arguments. On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
• 9: Verheij, B. (2007). Argumentation Support Software: Boxes-and-Arrows and Beyond. Law, Probability&Risk 6, 187--208.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods

General Terms:
Legal Aspects, Theory

Keywords:
argumentation support software, legal argumentation, legal decision support systems