PT132.S3.P4.Q26 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Computers have long been utilized in the sphere of law in the form of word processors, spreadsheets, legal research systems, and practice management systems. ███

Context · Computers often used by lawyers

Topic · Exciting prospect of using computers for legal reasoning

Problem · Computers don't perform legal reasoning well

████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ██ █ █████ █████

Main Point / Explanation · Computers have difficult interpreting and applying legal rules

Early Methods · Assumed computers could apply facts to rules to reach legal results

████ ███████ ██████████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █ █████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ████████████████ ███████ █ ██████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ █ █████ ████████ ███████ █ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████ █████ █████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ██ ████████████ ████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █ ████ ██ █████████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████

Problem with Early Methods · Underestimated difficulty of interpretation

E.g., is a mobile home in a trailer park a house or a motor vehicle? That requires interpretation. Many laws contain vague concepts in order to be flexible. But to apply those laws requires a lot of contextual knowledge about the world.

██████████ ██ █████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █████████████ █████████ ███ ███ █████████ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ █ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ █████████ █████ ██ █ ███ ██ ██████ █ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████ █ ████████ ████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████ █ ██████████ █████ ██ █ ███████ █████ ███

Modern Methods · Computers that incorporate case law

Proponents believe that computers can be programed with cases and use case-based reasoning to reach the right conclusion.

Problem with Modern Methods · The problem of interpretation is still present

Because the computer still needs to figure out which cases are similar in relevant ways.

Passage Style

Problem-analysis

Single position

26.

Based on the passage, which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████

Question Type

Implied

Case-based reasoning systems are discussed in P3. The author says that these systems try to apply precedent to individual cases by checking for similarities between various cases. But the problem with these systems is that what counts as “similar” is preset by the designer, which essentially makes these an inflexible matching program. They can’t actually reason out how a certain precedent may or may not apply in unique or unexpected ways.

The major problem ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ██████

Anti-supported. The major problem is that, no matter how many cases the system stores, they’re not able to reason out how one case is relevantly similar to another. They just check for cases that match up with fixed criteria that are preset by the designer. Adding more cases wouldn’t solve the underlying issue that these systems are really just a matching program, not a reasoning program.

These systems are ████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██████████

Unsupported. Case-based systems might be more successful (at least in the eyes of their proponents), but nothing suggests that they’re based on a “simpler view” of reasoning. It’s just a different method. Rule systems reason by rule-application using explicit legal rules, while case-based systems reason by analogy using precedent. We have no reason to think that reasoning by analogy is simpler than rule-application.

Adding specific criteria ███ ██████████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████████

Strongly supported. These systems already have specific criteria for similarity among cases. The problem is that these criteria, regardless of what they are, are always preset by the designer, which essentially makes these an inflexible matching program. They can’t actually reason out how a certain precedent may or may not apply in unique or unexpected ways.

83%

These systems can █████████████ ███████ ██████ ██████ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ █ ████ █████ ██ ██████

Anti-supported. The author states that no legal reasoning system can independently provide expert advice.

These systems are █████ ████████ ██ ██████ █ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████████

Unsupported. The way these systems try to reach decisions (reasoning by analogy instead of by rule-application) might be considered more ambitious (though that’s unclear). But their goal is the same: to “help to resolve legal disputes by reasoning from and applying the law.” The author never suggests that the purpose of case-based systems is any different from that of rule systems.

PrepTest 132 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Question 26

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action