It is a collective reference work in Spanish: concepts and authors from logic, argumentation theory, rhetoric, philosophy of language and methodology, each entry written by a specialist. Abduction, reductio ad absurdum, speech acts, analogy, fallacies, burden of proof. Quality is uneven, as in any volume with many signatures, and the level is academic.
What I took from it
Being able to name the moves. In an argument about what a system does or does not do, the same ones always appear: appeal to authority — a large vendor does it this way — appeal to consequences — if we say that, the project will not be approved — and shifting the burden of proof onto whoever objects. Recognising them is not about winning; it is about asking for what is missing without accusing anyone.
Burden of proof is the entry I use most. Whoever claims something is possible is the one who has to show it, and in systems projects that burden inverts effortlessly: someone promises, and the engineer is left having to prove it cannot be done. Being clear about who must prove what changes the tone of an entire meeting.
And the distinction between convincing and persuading, which sounds like a subtlety and is not: convincing aims at reasons that can be examined, persuading aims at getting someone to act. An honest proposal needs both, in that order.
What I left out
Most of the volume, which is philosophy written for philosophers. The formal logic entries are technical and give me nothing; the classical rhetoric ones are history. The copy I have is also a poor scan. I would not recommend it to anyone in my trade unless the subject interests them in itself: it is an occasional reference, not a working tool.