As mentioned above, Perelman has introduced several techniques in argumentation to persuade or to convince the audience. In turn Perelman has categorized technics in argumentation to associative and dissociative. Arguments based on dissociation of concepts means that connecting links, which should be regarded as separate and independent concepts, are associated to form a solid, but false argument. Associative techniques contain three different argumentation models: a) quasi-logical argumentation, b) arguments that are based on the structure of reality c) the relation establishing the structure of reality. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca 1971: 193– 460.)
To Perelman (1996: 62–63, 93) quasi-logical argumentation is often assimilated to diverse …show more content…
The objective of this type of argumentation is not the initiation of describing perfect image of reality, but rather the way, how opinions of reality are presented. These opinions in turn can be presented as facts, truths or presumptions. Good examples as techniques are for instance “group and its members”, argumentation based on authority, symbols or pragmatic argumentation. Argumentation based on structuring the reality requires factors that are related to the reality and connected to each other. The relation between facts and consequences are forming the social reality and argumentation based on reality must be reasonable. It needs to attain the agreement of proofs and facts between the speaker and hearer. This technique of argumentation supposes that human act must be considered as reasonable and there has to be agreement for motives of actions. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca 1971: …show more content…
Causal link can produce diverse effects on argumentation (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1971: 263):
1) argumentation tending to attach two given successive events to each other by means of causal link
2) argumentation tending to reveal the existence of a cause which could have determined a given event;
3) argumentation tending to show the effect which must result from a given
To Perelman (1996: 62–63, 93) quasi-logical argumentation is often assimilated to diverse …show more content…
The objective of this type of argumentation is not the initiation of describing perfect image of reality, but rather the way, how opinions of reality are presented. These opinions in turn can be presented as facts, truths or presumptions. Good examples as techniques are for instance “group and its members”, argumentation based on authority, symbols or pragmatic argumentation. Argumentation based on structuring the reality requires factors that are related to the reality and connected to each other. The relation between facts and consequences are forming the social reality and argumentation based on reality must be reasonable. It needs to attain the agreement of proofs and facts between the speaker and hearer. This technique of argumentation supposes that human act must be considered as reasonable and there has to be agreement for motives of actions. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca 1971: …show more content…
Causal link can produce diverse effects on argumentation (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1971: 263):
1) argumentation tending to attach two given successive events to each other by means of causal link
2) argumentation tending to reveal the existence of a cause which could have determined a given event;
3) argumentation tending to show the effect which must result from a given