Measuring university students' ability to recognize argument structures and fallacies

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Rhetoric

Background:

• Argumentation skills are vital across academic disciplines, yet students often struggle with them.
• Key components of argumentation include recognizing argument structures (e.g., Toulmin model) and identifying fallacies.
• Content knowledge may influence argumentation abilities, suggesting potential domain specificity.

Purpose of the Study:

• To develop and validate an instrument measuring recognition of argument structures and fallacies.
• To investigate domain specificity of argumentation skills in preservice teachers and business economics students.
• To examine whether fallacy recognition differs based on the congruence of deductive validity and inductive strength.

Main Methods:

• A study involving 267 preservice teachers and 56 business economics students.
• Participants identified argument components (Toulmin model) and rated argument cogency, justifying their decisions.
• Arguments contained specific fallacies (formal, overgeneralization, irrelevance, circularity) to assess fallacy recognition.

Main Results:

• No domain-specific differences were found for either argument structure or fallacy recognition.
• Fallacy recognition revealed two dimensions: congruent (formal fallacies, overgeneralizations) and incongruent (irrelevance, circularity).
• The developed instrument effectively measures argumentation skills across domains.

Conclusions:

• Argumentation skills, including fallacy recognition, appear to be domain-general.
• The congruence of argument quality indicators significantly influences fallacy recognition.
• Findings contribute to understanding cognitive processes in argumentation and developing targeted educational interventions.