Ubon Ratchathani University students' identification and evaluation of reasoning fallacies in political arguments

This study investigates Ubon Ratchathani University students’ identification and evaluation of reasoning informal fallacies in political arguments. A total of 90 undergraduate, 18 graduate students provided a test of their ability to identify and explain informal reasoning fallacies. Informal reasoning fallacy questionnaires consist of six topics of scenario, which one fallacy was presented and served each scenario. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with the arguments in each situation and to explain why they agreed or disagree. To examine participants’ ability to identify informal fallacy, participants’ explanations were considered and given a score depending on their explanations. The finding demonstrates that score of UBU students’ identification and evaluation of reasoning fallacies was extremely low. Participants received a total of score of 14 out of 648. Graduate level received the highest score for their explanation for the fallacy; the identifying ability progress of students was nonlinear. Contrary to the hypothesis, the fallacy who received highest score from participants was appealing to authority. This means subjects found this fallacy easier to detect than other kinds.
In summary, the finding of the study demonstrates that UBU students’ identification and evaluation of reasoning fallacies in political arguments have very low score. They received a total score of 14 out of 648. This means they lack of ability to evaluate and identify the fallacies in political arguments. This also indicates they are not aware of the relation between the premises and the conclusion of any arguments.