Courts use inferences to the best explanation in many contexts and for a variety of purposes. Yet our understanding of lawyers’ uses of this inferential form is insufficient. In this article, after briefly introducing this inferential form, I set out (i) to explain the structure of such arguments by reference to an argument scheme; (ii) to clarify the types of claims courts support by deploying such inferences while attempting to justify acting in accordance with explanatory principles (inferences I shall refer to as IBE-P); (iii) to offer an account of the “explanatory” relationship on which IBE-P is predicated; (iv) to explain what precisely can count as part of the explanandum in an IBE-P and, finally (v) to discuss criteria that might be used to adjudicate which is the best among rival explanations.

中文翻译：

---

最佳法律解释的推论

法院在许多情况下出于各种目的使用对最佳解释的推论。然而，我们对律师对这种推理形式的使用的理解是不够的。在这篇文章中，在简要介绍了这种推理形式之后，我开始（i）通过参考论证方案来解释这些论证的结构；(ii) 通过部署此类推论，同时试图证明根据解释性原则行事（推论我将称为 IBE-P）来阐明法院支持的索赔类型；(iii) 提供 IBE-P 所依据的“解释性”关系的说明；(iv) 解释可以作为 IBE-P 解释部分的确切内容，最后 (v) 讨论可用于判断哪个是竞争解释中最好的标准。