Unsupported. Doctrine- or rule-based systems aren’t the only kind of legal reasoning system with to have problems; case-based systems have issues too. And the problem with doctrine-based systems isn’t the fact that they focus on doctrine—it’s that computers don’t have the kind of comprehensive knowledge of the world they’d need to interpret uncertain concepts.

Unsupported. The author says that one problem with legal reasoning systems is that they don’t have the kind of comprehensive knowledge of the world they’d need to interpret uncertain concepts. But the issue there isn’t necessarily one of data storage; it’s about the kind of knowledge computers are capable of.

Anti-supported. The author states that parts of laws can be left outright undefined because it’s expected that the law will be applied to new, unforeseen situations. She doesn’t think more rules are, or even can be, the answer. Rather, she says that questions of interpretation would need to be settled by giving computers “comprehensive knowledge of the world.”

Strongly supported. The author notes that some parts of statues are left undefined because it’s expected that the law will be applied to new, unforeseen situations. This is a big reason why rule-based legal reasoning systems with their fixed set of rules, fail to work well. She also notes that a shortcoming of case-based systems is that they rely on a fixed set of cases and a fixed set of criteria for matching cases to precedents. The fact that this is a problem strongly suggests that legal reasoning can involve new, unpredictable ways of applying precedent to cases.

Unsupported. The author never suggests that user competence is a problem with legal reasoning systems, or that more competent users will make such systems work better. The problem with these systems is how they work on a fundamental level.