To this end, 356-second grade female senior state high school students from four schools in Zanjan were selected through multistage cluster random sampling (MCRS) method and based on Cambridge placement test (2010) 130 students proved to be upper-intermediate and participated in this correlational study. Few studies have been conducted to investigate these issues. The present study was an investigation of the relationship between the EFL learners' critical thinking, their frequency, and types of informal fallacy and evidence in argumentative writing.

Finally, the findings of the present are discussed in relation to the previous literature and some implications of the study are suggested. However, three separate instances of differences were observed. The results of the Multivariate Tests for all independent variables and /or their interactions indicated no significant differences for the overall informal fallacies. Nine major categories of informal fallacies were examined in learners' texts and the observed frequencies were analyzed using MANOVA. The participants' age and discipline were also included as independent variables. The corpus comprised of argumentative essays written by 120 Iranian male and female English language learners.

The present study examines whether gender could be considered as a determining factor influencing Iranian advanced EFL learners' argumentative writings with regard to informal fallacies of argumentation. Informal fallacies of argumentation as pitfalls of reasoning appear frequently in students' written texts, specially EFL / ESL Learners' argumentative essay writings. Much of the conventional wisdom on the subject currently being taught in logic and critical thinking textbooks derives from the evolution of Aristotle's treatment of sophistici elenchi (sophistical The study of informal fallacies has had a long history of benign neglect, even though it has continuously maintained a place of some importance in the logic curriculum of the universities. According to this conception, a fallacy is an argumenta- tive technique, one which could be used rightly in other instances, but is misused in the given case as a tactic to subvert and hinder the rules of a reasonable dialogue. A fallacy is characterized as a calculated tactic of deceptive argumentation used by one participant in a dialogue totrip up' another participant. An underlying philosophy behind a new conception of fallacy is presented. Critical errors of reasoning are identified and analyzed by developing context-based, normative models of reasonable dialogue in which a questioner must have freedom to ask informative and probing questions, and the respondent must be constrained to give reasonably direct, not overly evasive answers. These and other types of problematic questions, as well as evasive replies, and replying to a question with a question, are studied. Among the types of problematic questions analyzed are: the traditional so-called fallacy of many questions, illustrated by the famousHave you stopped beating your spouse?' black and white questions terminol- ogically loaded questions and questions containing personal attacks.

This study of fallacies, errors, faults, illicit attacks and blunders of questioning and replying to questions is illustrated with several challenging examples of tricky, argumentative questions drawn from parliamentary debates and other everyday cases of argumentation.

Loaded questions game pdf