Statutory reasoning is the task of reasoning with facts and statutes, which are rules written in natural language by a legislature. It is a basic legal skill. In this paper we explore the capabilities of the most capable GPT-3 model, text-davinci-003, on an established statutory-reasoning dataset called SARA. We consider a variety of approaches, including dynamic few-shot prompting, chain-ofthought prompting, and zero-shot prompting. While we achieve results with GPT-3 that are better than the previous best published results, we also identify several types of clear errors it makes. We investigate why these errors happen. We discover that GPT-3 has imperfect prior knowledge of the actual U.S. statutes on which SARA is based. More importantly, we create simple synthetic statutes, which GPT-3 is guaranteed not to have seen during training. We find GPT-3 performs poorly at answering straightforward questions about these simple synthetic statutes.

Statutory reasoning is the task of determining whether a legal statute, stated in natural language, applies to the text description of a case. Prior work introduced a resource that approached statutory reasoning as a monolithic textual entailment problem, with neural baselines performing nearly at-chance. To address this challenge, we decompose statutory reasoning into four types of language-understanding challenge problems, through the introduction of concepts and structure found in Prolog programs. Augmenting an existing benchmark, we provide annotations for the four tasks, and baselines for three of them. Models for statutory reasoning are shown to benefit from the additional structure, improving on prior baselines. Further, the decomposition into subtasks facilitates finer-grained model diagnostics and clearer incremental progress.