Inference in court is subject to scrutiny for structural correctness (e.g. deductive or non-monotonic validity) and probative weight in determinations such as logical relevancy and sufficiency of evidence. These determinations are made by judges or informally by jurors who typically have little, if any, training in formal or informal logical forms. This article explores the universal sufficiency of a single intuitive categorical natural language logical form (i.e. ‘defeasible class-inclusion transitivity’, DCIT) for facilitating such determinations and explores its effectiveness for constructing any typical inferential network in court. This exploration includes a comparison of the functionality of hybrid branching tree-like argument structures with the homogenous linear path argument structure of DCIT. The practicality of customary dialectical argument semantics and conceptions of probative weight are also examined with alternatives proposed. Finally, the issues of intelligibility and acceptability by end users in court of logical models are examined.
展开▼
