Past and Present Interactions in Legal Reasoning and Logic by Matthias Armgardt Patrice Canivez & Sandrine Chassagnard-Pinet

Author:Matthias Armgardt, Patrice Canivez & Sandrine Chassagnard-Pinet
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham

Move 25: O posits : P as an answer to P’s challenge launched with his move 14.

Moves 26: P asks for the play-objects of the embedded instructions =. In other words, P asks for the play-object that corresponds to the right side of the conditional.

Moves 27: At last O is forced to utter r : P.

Move 30: P posits r : P which is exactly the same as O’s 29th move. This is in fact the last move of the play and the Proponent – the beneficiary’s side - wins!

The reader might want to check that if the premise is that a ship arrival is not the case, a dual play can be developed in favour of the benefactor. The point is now to make use of the right side of the initial conjunction (premise I).

Note that this is still not a winning strategy. A winning strategy would involve showing that the series of moves of this play is one of the terminal series that will always lead to a win (for the notion of strategy, see Appendix AI.2). Now, certainly during a play, as in legal trials, “silly” or “logically not optimal” moves are always possible. At move 18 for example, the Proponent might have had chosen b as a substitution for y, i.e., for whatever reason, the Proponent might have put forward a ship arrival different to s as evidence. Logically, this is a weak move since both the antagonists have already agreed that s has been certified (to use Leibniz’s words). New evidence introduced during the play is totally procedural and might be contested. This brings us to the next section.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.