Fallacies in English Department Students’ Claims: A Rhetorical Analysis of Critical Thinking

Abstract

This study focuses on the fallacies found in English department students’ claims of fact, value and policy. It employs qualitative design as the object is the real reflection of critical thinking in the form of writing to understand the fallacies varieties.  The data are in the form of the sentences in the claims written by the students of UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang who took critical writing course. On claims of fact, the fallacies found include hasty generalization, irrelevancy, slippery slope, oversimplification and begging the question. Regarding pathos, the fallacy type covers ad populum, appeal to emotion premises and red herring. Meanwhile the ethos fallacy occurs in straw man only. On claims of value, more faulty reasoning is found compared to the discussion on the topics which are considered less familiar. In the logos fallacy for instance, the whole types of fallacy are found. The pathos found involves appeal to emotion premises and red herring. While the ethos fallacy occurs in appeal to authority and ad hominem. On claims of policy, the similar tendency of ethos is also found while the pathos existing is in the form of appeal to emotion premises.