law_argue
Read-only
How robust a conclusion is: the map of the dispute under the argumentation profile §274 (DECISION-0039). The answer falls into four classes: SKEPTICALLY_ACCEPTED — the conclusion is invulnerable (it survives in the grounded extension); CREDULOUSLY_ACCEPTED — merely defensible (there is a position for it and a position against); REJECTED — it survives nowhere; NO_ARGUMENT — there are no arguments at all. It builds ALL arguments out of the facts and the rules of the instrument (chains that did not fire in ordinary inference included), the rebut/undermine/undercut attacks and the defeats by priority. Predicate names come from law_packages. On large instruments a refusal by cap is possible — narrow facts or raise limits.maxArguments.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | the arguments of the predicate | |
| facts | No | facts of the case: [{predicate, args, negated?, provenance?}]. provenance is the same object as on law_ask: origin, document, quote, extractor. confidence is read by the package EvidencePolicy, not by the engine | |
| limits | No | the caps of the §274 profile: maxArguments (64), maxExtensions (8), maxUndecided (16) | |
| package | No | narrow the question to one package of law | |
| legalTime | No | the date of the law (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| predicate | Yes | the conclusion whose robustness is being measured |