Unwarranted Assumption Fallacies: A Primary Cause of Argumentative Deficiencies in Thesis Proposals

Abstract

This study seeks to identify and critically examine recurring patterns of unwarranted assumption fallacies that commonly arise in the construction of arguments, particularly those rooted in hasty generalizations and the use of logically irrelevant evidence. Drawing upon a qualitative content analysis of relevant scholarly literature and selected case studies, the investigation focuses on five prominent categories of fallacious reasoning: false causality based on irrelevant premises, premature generalizations derived from insufficient or non-representative data, hastily formulated claims, immature or weakly substantiated conclusions, and arguments relying on tangential or unrelated evidence. The analytical framework emphasizes the relationship between claims and their supporting evidence, assessing how inconsistencies and logical disconnects compromise argumentative validity. The findings reveal that all five fallacy types significantly diminish the strength, coherence, and credibility of academic arguments, often leading to misleading or erroneous conclusions. False causality typically emerges from unwarranted cause-effect attributions, while hasty generalizations are frequently grounded in anecdotal or statistically unrepresentative observations. Similarly, premature claims and immature conclusions reflect a lack of critical depth in reasoning, and the use of irrelevant evidence introduces logical discontinuities that weaken argumentative structure. These insights underscore the necessity of deliberate and rigorous evidence selection, as well as methodologically sound reasoning practices, in constructing robust and persuasive academic discourse. In doing so, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of argumentative fallacies and their implications for the integrity of scholarly communication.