@article{oai:icu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00005236,
 author = {Smith, Guy},
 journal = {語学研究},
 month = {Jan},
 note = {Traditionally in critical thinking and argumentation instructional approaches
groups of general argument patterns have often been listed and taught as
fallacies, for example ad-hominem, slippery slope, and black and white. The
definition of a fallacy is that it represents a general argument that applies invalid
or faulty reasoning. However, the implication of listing groups of argument
patterns as fallacies is that the problem with the argument is seen to be in the
inherent form of the argument. Previous work, however, has pointed out that it
is not the form but the content, the weakness or strength of the claim itself and
the perspective being brought to the claim that determines the reasonableness or
appropriateness of the claim, or whether it may display invalid or faulty
reasoning. Building upon this body of work and my own experience, I develop a
position arguing against using a traditional approach of instruction that
describes groups of argumentative patterns as fallacies due to their inherent
form. I also argue that the traditional approach has some potentially serious
drawbacks for student attitudes and critical thinking dispositions. Finally, an
alternative approach for how these argument patterns could be used as teaching
materials that reflect a more real-world oriented paradigm is discussed.},
 pages = {62--69},
 title = {Rethinking the Concept of Fallacies in Argumentation Instruction},
 volume = {36},
 year = {2021}
}