[Argumentation and construction of validity in Carlos Matus' situational strategic planning]

This study analyzes the process of producing a situational plan according to a benchmark from the philosophy of language and argumentation theory. The basic approach used in the analysis was developed by Carlos Matus. Specifically, the study seeks to identify the inherent argumentative structure and patterns in the situational explanation and regulatory design in a plan's operations, taking argumentative approaches from pragma-dialectics and informal logic as the analytical parameters. The explanation of a health problem is used to illustrate the study. Methodologically, the study is based on the existing literature on the subject and case analyses. The study concludes with the proposition that the use of the specific references means introducing greater rigor into both the analysis of the validity of causal arguments and the design of proposals for interventions, in order for them to be more conclusive in achieving a plan's objectives.