Perelman And Olbrechts-Tytec Argument Analysis

Illness and diseases have always played a key role in the deaths of many lives throughout the years. Especially in past decades where there was no mediation or vaccinations that would help us combat the spread of certain diseases, such as whooping cough, influenza, chicken pox, mumps, polio, measles, etc. These vaccinations have significantly impacted the decrease of the mortality rate. Vaccinations have improved the quality of life, but the society that we live in is split. Many believe that vaccinations should be required and mandatory for everyone to receive shots. Others believe that shots create more harm than good. This controversy over mandatory or choice of receiving vaccinations has become a long-term debate over the years. For those

The strategies used are from the many different strategies created by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s and can be found in New Rhetoric. The two specific strategies I use are the listed under the category of types of objects of agreement. Today, the strategy of facts/truths are used to justify and make an argument credible, depend on the source of course. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s (1969) New Rhetoric, describe a fact as “only if we can postulate uncontroverted, universal agreement with respect to it” (strategy #16). Also, it has mentioned that a fact can be questioned later and which can result in a hot debate if that fact is considered to be justifiable and true. If others who do not believe that fact to be true can counter and object that fact as true if it has other facts that reject it. Also facts can be characterized as “the product of communication, interaction, and negotiations, and most especially, as the final result of a disciplinary consensus” (Livnat, 2009, p.378). Facts and truths are a main strategy that is used many arguments, which helps justify one’s argument or help oppose another’s argument. Providing facts and truth are critical to help promote points, but “a “fact” loses its status when it becomes an ending point, rather than a starting point, for argument” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969, strategy