找回密码
 To register

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

Titlebook: Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation; Thomas Bustamante,Christian Dahlman Book 2015 Springer International Publishing Switz

[复制链接]
楼主: Hayes
发表于 2025-3-23 13:41:59 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-23 17:45:52 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-23 21:20:35 | 显示全部楼层
Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation978-3-319-16148-8Series ISSN 1572-4395 Series E-ISSN 2215-0315
发表于 2025-3-24 00:20:25 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-24 03:13:14 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-24 09:33:40 | 显示全部楼层
M. P. McGarry,A. M. Miller,D. G. Colleygal decision maker to assess, as the legal decision maker – who lacks expert knowledge on the subject issue – must distinguish between experts that are highly reliable and experts that are less reliable. A methodology for the assessment of the expert testimony has been suggested previously, in the w
发表于 2025-3-24 13:32:36 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-24 18:00:01 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-24 22:52:17 | 显示全部楼层
Experimental Hematology Today 1978h the logical validity of this argument. Once established its logical validity, I shall try to argue that the second premise of the Sorites argument – the premise in accordance with if an individual . has the property . by having . unities of something, then another individual . which has .1 unities
发表于 2025-3-25 00:02:12 | 显示全部楼层
Experimental Hematology Today 1978sts itself in . and . In analyzing strategic maneuvering one category of parameters to be considered are the constraints of the institutional context. In this paper I explore the institutional constraints for topical selection for the legal argumentative activity type .. I will make a distinction be
 关于派博传思  派博传思旗下网站  友情链接
派博传思介绍 公司地理位置 论文服务流程 影响因子官网 SITEMAP 大讲堂 北京大学 Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
发展历史沿革 期刊点评 投稿经验总结 SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系数 清华大学 Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
|Archiver|手机版|小黑屋| 派博传思国际 ( 京公网安备110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-5-7 10:19
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博传思   京公网安备110108008328 版权所有 All rights reserved
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表