Open-textured terms in written rules are typically settled through interpretive argumentation. Ongoing work has attempted to catalogue the schemes used in such interpretive argumentation. But how can the use of these schemes affect the way in which people actually use and reason over the proper interpretations of open-textured terms? Using the interpretive argument-eliciting game Aporia as our framework, we carried out an empirical study to answer this question. Differing from previous work, we did not allow participants to argue for interpretations arbitrarily, but to only use arguments that fit with a given set of interpretive argument templates. Finally, we analyze the results captured by this new dataset, specifically focusing on practical implications for the development of interpretation-capable artificial reasoners.

翻译：书面规则中的开放性术语通常通过解释性论证来解决。当前研究尝试对这些解释性论证所用的论式进行系统分类。但这些论式的使用如何影响人们对开放性术语合理解释的实际推理方式？我们以解释性论证诱发游戏Aporia为框架开展实证研究来解答此问题。与既往研究不同，我们并未允许参与者任意进行解释论证，而是要求其仅使用符合给定解释性论证模板集的论证。最终，我们分析了该新数据集所捕获的结果，特别关注其对开发具备解释能力的人工推理器的实践启示。