Reasoning Schemes, Expert Opinions and Critical Questions. Sex Offenders Case Study

This paper examines in detail the argumentation features in the domain of sex offender with some applications to the scheme of “Argument from Expert Opinion". We build a model for reasoning schemes, critical questions and expert opinion on the question of “the degree of risk of a sex offender". We discover that in order to properly model expert practice in this area we need to use numerical argumentation as well as the new notion of “Attack as Information Input". The model is generic and we believe is not restricted to the sex offence area of expertise. Our paper also offers a more detailed example for Walton’s argumentation scheme of Expert Opinion as well as a bridge between the argumentation community and the community dealing with sex offenders. We offer an introduction to the student on the subject of determining the degree of risk of sex offenders. We also look at standard international tools for determining the risk of sex offenders and see how the argumentation community can integrate these tools

Reasoning under the Influence of Universal Distortion. Sex Offenders Case Study

We define and study the phenomenon of a universal distortion into a reasoning system or an argumentation network. Such distortions can happen for various reasons, for instance under the influence of alcohol or a fundamentalist religion, or as the result of a behavioural disorder such as paedophilia. We define the notion theoretically in the framework of abstract argumentation and present an actual case study of a sex offender. We then present a formal logical model