Raising Students’ Awareness on Fallacies in Argumentative Writing

Witri Oktavia

Abstract


Presenting convincing arguments to defense a standpoint in an argumentative essay was one of the problems of English Department students of UNP. Convincing arguments based on pragma-dialectical framework are those which do not violate any of critical discussion rules. Violations of these rules are known as fallacies. This present study aimed at analyzing types of fallacies mostly made by the students in their argumentative writing. It was expected that by knowing these fallacies, students would pay more attention on the strength of the defense presented, and minimize any weak arguments. It was revealed that violations of critical discussion rules done by the students mostly related to their lack of ability to provide adequate evidences and facts to support their stands.

 


Keywords


argumentative writing, fallacies, critical discussion rules.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barnet, Sylvan and Hugo Bedau. 2008. Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument. New York: Bedford/St.Martin’s

Goshgarian et al. 2003. Dialogues: An argument Rhetoric and Reader. London: Longman

Groarke, L.A and Tindale.C.W. 2004. Good reasoning Matters! : A Constructive Approach to Critical thinking. Ontario: Oxford University Press

Hahn , U. and Oaksford, M. 2006. ‘ A Boyesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies’, Knowledge, Rationally & action, 241-270.

Hahn , U. and Oaksford, M. 2007. ‘ The Rationality of informal argumentation: A Boyesian Approach to Reasoning Fallcies, Psychological Review. 114, 704-732.

Mayberry, Katherine J. 2009. Everyday Arguments: A Guide to Writing and Reading Effective Arguments. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company

Martin, J.R.1985. Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Melbourne: Deakin University Press

Ramage, John., et.al. 2009. Argument in Composition. Indiana: Parlor Press.

Reid,J.M. 2006. Essentials of Teaching Academic Writing: English for Academic Success. Boston: Thomson Heinle

Van Eemeren, F.H.,Grootensdorst,R., & Henkemans, F.S. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, and Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Eemeren, F.H., and Rob Grootensdorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen,B., Meuffels, B. 2009. Fallacies and Judgement of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. New York: Springer.

Weston, Anthony. 1992. A Rulebook for Arguments. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang



This Proceedings is Currently indexed by:

Google Scholar.

The Proceedings of International Seminar on English Language and Teaching is registered at LIPI