{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020815986677768527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016652789342214821, 'mean_word_length': 5.260416666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rationality and Narrative: A Relationship of Priority

They go on to say that "Argumentation addressed to a universal audience must convince the reader that the reasons adduced are of a compelling character, that they are self-evident, and possess an absolute and timeless validity, inde pendent of local or historical contingencies" (32). Aproblem arises for informal logicians and rhetoricians in the claim that the reasons must escape constraints of time and place. In order to escape local or historical contingencies, to be timeless and self-evident, reasons must rise above local narrative constructs. But does this mean rising above all narrative constructs? Does Perelman's notion of the universal audience divorce argumentation from context? Narrative rationality, as set forth by Walter Fisher and others, opens the way for an interpretation of a universal audience that is grounded in a particular context. Rationality itself can be understood to rise from the human impulse to tell stories. If to interact with one another in an activity as basic as argumentation requires a nexus of narrative and rationality, which if either of these components is ontologically and/or practically prior?