Throughout, the discussion focuses upon the role which interpretation and coherence play within legal reasoning, and the reasons why these concepts are regarded by some as being distinctive of reasoning about the law.
This was indeed observed in most cases (Tables 2 and 3) and emphasizes the extent to which interpretation of results depends on the details of the applied evaluation method.
Since it holds that morality determines how institutional practice affects rights and obligations, it inherits the holistic structure of morality: the whole of morality confronts the whole of institutional practice and determines its effect, which interpretation purports to identify.
The latter is particularly important in ethnic comparison studies, in which interpretation and reporting may differ.
Hybrid interpretivism gives us no reason to abandon a sharp distinction between the pre-interpretively given corpus of institutionally valid norms constituted by communication alone, on which interpretation operates, and the final set of norms that interpretation yields.
This is why the meaning of acts of discourse is always open to new interpretations, particularly as time passes and the very context in which interpretation occurs itself changes.
Guess which interpretation the Republicans, and the Democrats, will choose.
It is too early to say which interpretation is correct.
First, which interpretation of probability is appropriate?
Which interpretation is more "real"?
