Unsupported. The author only ever says that these systems have fallen short of expectations. She never suggests that anyone’s expectations have been met.

Anti-supported. The author argues that progress is hindered because of the way these systems function on a fundamental level. The problems are more on the theoretical side. Meanwhile, the author never raises any issues with access to legal documents.

Unsupported. The author never suggests how these systems will or should be used. She brings up legal research systems as an example of a long-standing use of computers, but she indicates that legal reasoning systems are a different kind of tool from legal research systems.

Unsupported. The author presents case-based systems as a more recent development than rule-based ones, and she never suggests that rule-based systems will replace them. She simply says there are problems with both.

Strongly supported. The author notes that to for rule-based systems to work, they’d need a “comprehensive knowledge of the world” beyond what computers are capable of, and that case-based systems suffer from an “intractable” (i.e., difficult to solve) problem in software development. So she believes that if we can ever overcome the problems with legal reasoning systems, it would require significant advances in computer tech.