Analogy, authority, causality and definition are fundamental argumentative resources; they can be found in Cicero’s typologies (1st century BC, S. Collections from Aristotle to Boethius), as well as in Janik, Rieke and Toulmin’s (20th century CE, S. Collections: Contemporary Innovations and Structurations).
The arguments related to these sources can be divided into two main categories.
(1) Arguments establishing (constructing, justifying…) the claim that:
— Such source is authoritative; S. Authority, §7.3
(2) Arguments exploiting a pre-established (presupposed, well-known…)
— Authoritative source, S. Authority, §6 – 67
This second type arguments can be rebutted on the ground that the underlying first-type claim is not correct.
Arguments “based on / establishing the structure of reality”
The previous distinction is different from the one found in the Treatise between “Argument based on the structure of reality” (, §60-77) and “Relations establishing the structure of reality” (, §78-88), S. Collections (4). According to Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca,
— Causal arguments and authority are “based on the structure of reality”
— Analogy is a relation “establishing the structure of reality”
— Definition is a “quasi-logical” relation.
According to the previous distinction, these relations have to be grounded and can be exploited. The first argument establishes the structure of reality, the second ones are based on such local structuration of reality