{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01910828025477707, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.9, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dimension-based analysis of hypotheticals from supreme court oral argument

In this paper we examine a sequence of hypotheticals taken from a Supreme Court oral argument. We use the idea of a “dimension,” developed previously in our case-based reasoning system HYPO, to analyze the hypotheticals and to speculate on how the Justices might have arrived at them. The case we consider is taken from the area of Fourth Amendment law concerning warrantless search and seizure.