DCIT for Evaluating Legal Evidence Relevancy

An objection that aims to diminish or eliminate the persuasive power of the evidence presented, without directly criticizing the argument's structure. It can operate by either diverting or blocking the flow of evidence.

A type of objection in argumentation that directly attacks the proposed evidence's relevance to the overall argument's structure.

A type of diverting objection that proposes an alternative argument, bypassing the existing line of reasoning. It focuses on an alternative chain of reasoning.

A type of diverting objection that operates within the existing line of reasoning by adding a new argument or premise.

A type of blocking objection that aims to directly impede the flow of evidence and undermine the argument's persuasiveness.

One of the two main types of defeating arguments, which aim to disrupt the flow of evidence by refuting or challenging the validity of the supporting evidence.

One of the two main types of defeating arguments, which undermine the persuasive force of the evidence by introducing alternative interpretations or contextual information.

The quality of evidence that makes it relevant and valuable to strengthening a conclusion. It refers to the ability of evidence to support or refute the ultimate point being argued.

The ultimate issue or fact to be proved in a legal case. It is the main point that needs to be determined.

A fact that is not the ultimate issue but is relevant to the ultimate fact and helps prove it. It has probative relevancy to the ultimate probandum.

A fact that directly supports the ultimate probandum. It is essential for proving the case.

The connection between a piece of evidence and the ultimate probandum is established through a chain of logical connections.

The idea that evidence must be relevant to the matter at issue in a case. It must tend to prove or disprove something that is at stake in the case.

A new approach that aims to break down complex arguments about probative relevancy into simpler, more manageable steps, making it easier for lawyers to present their cases.

A legal case where the court combined the concepts of 'relevance' and 'materiality' into a single definition of relevance as used in FRE 401.

A type of argument structure where multiple lines of reasoning converge towards the same conclusion. Each line of reasoning provides independent support for the conclusion, and they can stand alone even if one line is weakened or removed.

A type of argument structure where premises are connected along the same line of reasoning, with each premise building upon the previous one. Removing a premise in a linked argument significantly weakens the overall conclusion.

A test used to identify linked arguments. It involves removing one premise at a time and evaluating whether the conclusion is significantly weakened. If removing a premise significantly reduces the conclusion's strength, the argument is likely linked.

In argumentation, this refers to the acceptance of premises as true, even though they may not be definitively proven. These include facts, general knowledge, and potential exceptions that may not be explicitly stated.

In a DCIT inference diagram, this indicates the direction of reasoning. A uni-directional arrow shows that the reasoning flows in one direction, from premise(s) to conclusion.

A type of argument structure where the conclusion is dependent on evidence that is added incrementally, with each piece of new evidence building upon the previous one. This structure is used in legal arguments to account for the fact that new evidence may emerge during the case.

In legal argumentation, the argument structure needs to account for the possibility of new evidence, exceptions, and assumptions. This is achieved by including necessary and adjunct assumptions that might affect the conclusion.

These are assumptions added to an argument to account for potential exceptions or new facts that may arise. They ensure the argument's flexibility and robustness in the face of evolving information.