The author doesn’t suggest that the problems with computer-based interpretation and reasoning will fundamentally change anything. In fact, she notes in P2 that doctrine-based systems won’t work “in the foreseeable future” at least and in P3 that case-based systems have an “intractable” (i.e., difficult to solve) problem.

The purpose of this Problem-Analysis passage is to inform us of a problem, and this is a good description of that problem.

Anti-supported. The author says that in P3 that this is an “intractable” (i.e., difficult to solve) problem.

This describes a solution to the problem of designing legal reasoning systems. But the author doesn’t argue for a solution, and she never suggests that getting computers to use “human intuition” could be a solution. The only factor she brings up about how to get legal reasoning systems to work better is to give them “comprehensive knowledge of the world.” There’s nothing there about intuition, and anyway, she doesn’t propose this as a real solution because she believes it’s beyond what computers are capable of.

The author is describing a problem with a specific application of computers. She’s not discussing the use of computers in general, and she’s not defending their use.