An Analysis of Error Aspects in the Discussions of University Freshmen

Abstract

My study analyzed and considered the error patterns that appear in discussion classes for university freshmen, focusing on their papers and discourse for discussion. Debate is the activity of asking and answering questions regarding the justification for an argument. The conclusion and the ground, or the basis for supporting a certain conclusion, constitute an argument. The conclusion is well justified when the ground supports the conclusion well, is acceptable, and contains content that can answer the counterargument. Therefore, whether or not the arguments in any given discussion were erroneous was analyzed on the basis of the acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency of the aforementioned grounds. A wide range of discussion errors appeared in both the composition and presentation level of the argument, and the process of asking and answering the reason by constructing the argument. In particular, I often found that grounds unrelated to the conclusions were presented by ‘begging the question’, ‘appealing to the majority’, or simply by confusing the meaning of the concept. In addition, errors were found that provided grounds which were difficult to accept or provided grounds which did not sufficiently support the conclusions. My analysis of error patterns found in discussions is significant for providing a basis for discussion classes in universities which apply various thinking experiments in order for us to move in the direction of expanding the depth and breadth of our students' thoughts.