nb-11 solutions — Appeal: reading, judgment and precedent

← Back to lessonChapter 11 / 25 · Advanced · Worked solution

How to verify

Checkable against law test packs/examples/language-demo/appeals (7 checked, 7 passed). Identifiers and code as written.

1. Broad’s premises and the clerk’s file

Answer: second_vehicle(ann) plus permit_eligible(ann) (via resident + vehicle_registered); the clerk’s file fails the eligibility premise.

BroadReading fires only when both second_vehicle(a) and permit_eligible(a) hold. The test supplies second_vehicle directly and earns eligibility through resident + vehicle_registered (nb-01’s general rule). A file with the second vehicle alone satisfies Narrow’s single premise instead — which is why the same fact yields TRUE_ONLY under one selection and FALSE_ONLY under the other. The reading selects the burden of proof.

2. Why an issue instead of FALSE_ONLY

Answer: FALSE_ONLY would be Narrow’s answer, and no reading was selected — the engine refuses to pick one silently.

INTERPRETATION_REQUIRED means the SecondVehicle group got no selection in context, so neither NarrowReading nor BroadReading may fire. FALSE_ONLY is what the narrow reading test derives after choosing Narrow; without a choice there is no derivation at all, hence an issue rather than any truth value. exactly_one makes the selection mandatory case input.

3. Why NEITHER while waiting for judgment

Answer: nothing refutes the waiver — the hardship premise is simply unsupplied, and only the HearingOfficer can supply it.

FALSE_ONLY would need a derived negation (as Narrow derives not second_permit). Here HardshipWaiver’s hardship(a) premise has no support either way: no adjudicated judgment is on record, and desk facts cannot satisfy a judgment relation. So the conclusion is NEITHER with evaluation_status == REQUIRES_JUDGMENT — the case waits on the hearing officer’s decision, not on more desk evidence.

4. Shared ground and distinguishing fact in Bob’s case

Answer: shared domain fact lives_in_city(bob); distinguishing defendant fact second_home(bob); SecondHomeNotResident decides.

Bob matches P1’s domain (lives_in_city) but carries the extra defendant-side factor second_home, which Ann’s facts lack. That extra factor distinguishes P1 away, so the precedent’s outcome does not carry — and the general strict rule SecondHomeNotResident fires on second_home(bob) to derive not resident_for_permit(bob): FALSE_ONLY. Same domain, one extra fact, opposite outcome.

How to verify

Terminal

law test packs/examples/language-demo/appeals

Expected: итого: 7 проверено, 7 прошли, 0 не прошли, 0 не исполнены. The deciding tests are broad reading, narrow reading, no selection — open question, judgment not yet rendered, judgment rendered, precedent followed, and precedent distinguished.