the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Foris Publications.
FREEMAN, J. B. (2006). “Systematizing Toulmin’s Warrants: An Epistemic Approach”, en D. L. HITCHCOCK y B. VERHEIJ (eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (pp. 87-10). Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag.
HASTINGS, A. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
KIENPOINTNER, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
LOUI, R.P. (1995). “Hart’s Critics on Defeasible Concepts and Ascriptivism”, en Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 21-30). New York (New York): ACM Press.
PERELMAN, C. y OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L. (1971/1958). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame/London. French original first published in 1958.
PENNINGTON, N. y HASTIE, R. (1993). “Reasoning in explanation-based decision making”, en Cognition, vol. 49, n.º 1-2, 123-163.
REED, C., WALTON, D. y MACAGNO, F. (2007). “Argument Diagramming in Logic, Law and Artificial Intelligence”, en Knowledge Engineering Review, 22 (1), 87-109.
SCHANK, R. C. (1986). Explanations Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum.
THAGARD, P. (2004). “Causal Inference in Legal Decision Making: Explanatory Coherence vs. Bayesian Networks”, en Applied Artificial Intelligence 18 (3), 231-249.
TOULMIN, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TWINING, W. L. (1999). “Necessary but Dangerous? Generalizations and Narrative in Argumentation about ‘Facts’ in Criminal Process”, en J. F. NIJBOER y M. MALSCH (eds.), Complex Cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands Criminal Justice System (pp. 69-98). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
VERHEIJ, B. (2000). “Dialectical Argumentation as a Heuristic for Courtroom Decision Making”, en P. J. van KOPPEN y N. ROOS (eds.), Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology. Liber Amicorum Hans F. Crombag (pp. 203-226). Maastricht: Metajuridica.
VERHEIJ, B. (2003). “Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic”, en Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2), 167-195.
VERHEIJ, B. y BEX, F. J. (2009). “Accepting the Truth of a Story About the Facts of a Criminal Case”, en H. KAPTEIN, H. PRAKKEN y B. VERHEIJ (eds.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic (Applied Legal Philosophy Series) (pp. 161- 193). Farnham: Ashgate.
WAGENAAR, W. A., VAN KOPPEN, P. J. y CROMBAG, H. F. M. (1993). Anchored Narratives. The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
WALTON, D. N. (2001). “Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments”, en Informal Logic 21 (2), 141-172.
WALTON, D. N. (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park (Pennsylvania): Penn. State University Press.
WALTON, D. N., REED, C. A. y MACAGNO, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WIGMORE, J. H. (1931). The Principles of Judicial Proof or the Process of Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 2.ª ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
