Argument moves in a rule-guided domain

Abstract

We discuss a theory of heuristic strategies and tactics for making arguments in a domain guided by rules where the primary task is to use previous cases to argue for a particular interpretation of a rule in a new fact situation. Since rules frequently have various problematic aspects, such as unstated exceptions or prerequisites, or use terms that are not clearly defined, the actual interpretation is a matter of debate, and the arguer must use interpretations from precedent cases to form his argument. The argument strategies and tactics actually adopted depend on the arguer's point of view and the complexion of his case in light of the rules and the precedents. The tactics, called "moves" here, are ultimately expressed in a small set of generic "argument primitives," such as analogizing and distinguishing. We discuss how these argument strategies, moves, and primitives are used by our mixed paradigm system, CABARET (Rissland & Skalak, 1990). We illustrate with examples from an area of U.S. Federal income tax law.