An Analysis on the Speech Contestants’ Arguments in English Celebration Week
Octaviyani Raharja
1213009001
Abstract
Nowadays, many universities hold speech contest to facilitate their students in improving their communicative skills. Widya Mandala Catholic University, through English Department, holds a speech contest during the English Celebration Week event. As speech contest in common, students are required to conduct a good speech that deals with the topic given. Unfortunately, there are still some mistakes found that deal with the argument components and verbal fallacies. In figuring out a good speech, the contestants’ speeches are recorded and transcribed to be analyzed whether they have met the quality of a good speech which are: (1) includes all of the main components of argument and (2) fallacies free. Since the speech contestants are still in the first semester, they have limited knowledge on argument components and verbal fallacies. Therefore, the contestants sometimes miss the argument components and make no verbal fallacies in their speech.

|Keywords: Argument, Fallacy, Verbal Fallacy, Speech, ECW Speech Contest |

Introduction

There are four language skills and two language components that are needed in learning foreign language, especially English. Among the four language skills, speaking has big roles in both language teaching and learning activity since it requires both communicative skills and also schemata. Moreover, Burk (1998) states that speaking is the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in a variety of contexts. It requires not only the language skills but also the language components. There are several methods that are used to teach speaking according to Thornbury and Slade (2006), such as: dialogue, drama activities, role plays, simulations, games, discussions, informal classroom chat and debates. Considering those methods, some universities decide to hold a speech contest in improving their students’ communicative skills. By joining a speech contest students are expected to compose a good speech as the way of improving their communicative skills. Unfortunately, there are some qualities that should be fulfilled to produce a good speech, which are fallacies free and include all the arguments components in it. Interested in analyzing a good speech, the writer decides to make a study on analyzing the speech contestants’ arguments in English Celebration Week that is held by English Department of Widya Mandala Surabaya Catholic University. Therefore, the writer formulates two research questions as: 1. Which components of arguments are found in the contestants’ speech? 2. Are there any possible verbal fallacies produced in the arguments of the contestants’ speech?”
This two research questions are used to find out the components of the arguments in the contestants’ speech and to analyze the types of verbal fallacies that were produced in the arguments of the contestants’ speech. This study is concerned more on the construction of arguments and the types of verbal fallacies produced in the verbal persuasive speech of ECW speech contest. Therefore, the non-verbal aspects of the arguments are disregarded. Moreover, among six types of the verbal fallacies, five are chosen as the concern of this study. They are amphiboly, equivocation, division, composition, and figure of speech. Accent is disregarded since it deals with performance rather than the content of the argument. Besides, in figuring out the component of arguments, the writer analyzes the three essential parts of a good argument which are claim, data and warrant. The writer hopes that through this study, the students and lecturers can learn how to compose a good persuasive speech. Besides, it is also expected that the study can be used as a reference for the next speech contestants in making a good speech by eliminating the verbal fallacies and improving some good points made by the previous winner.

Related Theories In line with the title of this study, the theories used are: 1. The Internal Structure of Arguments proposed by Walton (2008), 2. The Six Interrelated Components for analyzing arguments proposed by Toulmin (as cited in Fulkerson, 1996), 3. Verbal Fallacies as proposed by Aristotle in his work, Organon (as cited in Engel, 2000), 4. Persuasive Speech as discussed by Ehninger, Gronbeck, McKerrow and Monroe (1982). Those theories above are used to analyze the speech contestants’ arguments. First, the internal structure of arguments is examined, then a good argument is identified using the six interrelated components proposed by Toulmin. After that, the arguments are analyzed using the verbal fallacies theory in figuring out the contestants’ fallacies. The persuasive speech is used as the basic theory of the contestants’ speech so that its arguments can be analyzed.

The Internal Structure of Arguments Argument is defined as a set of statements made up of three parts which are a set of premises, an inference and a conclusion (Walton, 2008). A set of premises consists of two or more declarative sentences which assert a condition or activity. It is necessary to consider the audience acceptance towards which kind of assertions they will accept and which they will question, in constructing premises. The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions which process is called as inference. In making an inference, a new premise is derived from the premises which have been accepted. Inference itself is often denoted by phrases such as “implies that” or “therefore”. As the final stage of inference, conclusion is stated. It is affirmed on the basis of the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such as “it follows that”, “we conclude that” and so on. All those three components should be consistent and logical from the beginning so that the conclusion follows logically. A good argument is produced when all of the internal structures are included. However, there are some conditions where an argument will not follow the order as described above. For instance, the conclusions may be stated first and the premises will be stated afterwards, but still, this is perfectly valid. Below is the example of a good argument. I’ll give you two tips which can help you to be a superhero. It’ll help you a little bit to be a superhero.
The first, the first, unleash your super power. For example, anyone has that super power, that ability to learn. Ok. So just study hard make you understand to the lesson which have given to you, discover things that haven’t been discover yet or learn something new. Study hard will also increase your knowledge, and will make you get a bad, a good mark. (Transcript 3 lines 40-46) Premise 1: I’ll give you two tips which can help you to be a superhero. Premise 2: It’ll help you a little bit to be a superhero. Premise 3: The first, the first, unleash your super power. Premise 4: For example, anyone has that super power, that ability to learn. Inference: So just study hard make you understand to the lesson which have given to you, discover things that haven’t been discover yet or learn something new Conclusion: Study hard will also increase your knowledge, and will make you get a bad, a good mark. The arguments above contain all the three internal structure of an argument. Therefore, they can be justified as good arguments.

The Six Interrelated Components This theory is proposed by Stephen Edelston Toulmin who is widely known as an influential British philosopher, author, and educator. His Model of Argumentation is presented in form of a diagram containing six interrelated components that is used for analyzing arguments. This was introduced in his 1958 work The Uses of Arguments. Toulmin (as cited in Fulkerson, 1996) proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments. Toulmin Model of Argument is presented as follows:
Figure 1 The Toulmin Model of Argument
[pic]
Source:http://tribes.tribe.net/thebullshitstopshere/photos/547b3eae-5240-44c0-aff8-ee5f1f63d596

There are six interrelated components that are presented in Toulmin Model of Argument. They are claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and reservation or rebuttal. Claim is defined as the main point of the argument. Thus, claim is what the speaker is trying to say, or the speaker’s thesis statement or main idea. In supporting the claim, the speaker should bring some supporting evidence, facts, examples, quotations, and statistics, called data. In linking the data and the claim, warrants are needed. Warrants are the assumptions, general principles, and conventions of specific disciplines, values, and beliefs. If the warrants are challenged, backing should be brought up as the further proof. Backing can be scientific and philosophical truths believed by the targeted audience. There are two more interrelated components, which are rebuttal and qualifier. Rebuttal is the exceptions to that warrant. Furthermore, rebuttal is where the author addresses the audience's opposing viewpoints or possible objections in order to strengthen his/her argument. The rebuttal can also be a place where the speaker concedes any weaknesses in his/her own argument or strengths in opposing arguments, but then carefully qualifies the effect these weakness have on the general strength of his/her original argument. Whereas, qualifier is words or phrases expressing the speaker's degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include "possible," "probably," "impossible," "certainly," "presumably," "as far as the evidence goes," or "necessarily." The six interrelated components are divided into two triads. The first triad is the essential components which are claim, data and warrant. The second triad is backing, qualifier and rebuttal. All arguments, no matter what the field, have these three elements, although frequently not all three are explicit, while the second triad may not be needed in some arguments. Here are the examples of sentences to be analyzed using Toulmin’s model of argument (as cited in Fulkerson, 1996). Nowadays, it is necessary to have a key to operate the modern automobiles which are constructed with the electrical circuitry, unless you know some procedure like hot-wiring or how to get a substitute key. When Sandy lost her key, she will not be able to drive home, unless she finds a replacement key, hot-wire the car, get someone else to hot-wire the car, or borrow a car from someone else. Claim: Sandy will not be able to drive home. Data: Sandy lost her key. Warrant: It is necessary to have a key. Backing: The modern automobiles are constructed with the electrical circuitry. Rebuttals: …, unless you know some procedure like hot-wiring or how to get a substitute key. …, unless she finds a replacement key, hot-wire the car, get someone else to hot-wire the car, or borrow a car from someone else. Because exceptions to the argument are possible, the claim itself might appropriately include a qualifier, an adverb indicating the strength with which the arguer believes the premises support it. We can use the word “probably” in making the qualifier.

Verbal Fallacies Verbal fallacies are categorized by Aristotle in one of his texts in Aristotle’s logical works Organon. In the Organon, there a text titled Sophistical Refutations in which he identified thirteen fallacies, and categorized them into two big categories, material fallacies and verbal fallacies (Pickard, 2007). Those which are categorized as material fallacies are: fallacy of accident or weeping generalization, converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization, irrelevant conclusion, affirming the consequent, begging the question, fallacy of false cause and fallacy of many questions. Whereas, accent; amphiboly; equivocation; composition; division; and figure of speech are those categorized as fallacies of ambiguity or verbal fallacies (Engel, 2000). In line with the title of this study, the verbal fallacies are broadly discussed as the speech is a verbal communicative language. Engel (2000) stated that verbal fallacies are also called as fallacies of ambiguity as they arise when an argument contains words and phrases which are ambiguous and misleading in meanings. There are six kinds of verbal fallacies (as mentioned before) and they all identified about sentences, phrases or words which have more than two meanings, both in the word used and word emphasis verbally. Tamayao (2008) stated that Aristotle defined accent as the oral counterpart of amphiboly, consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. It is quite similar to amphiboly, but the ambiguity is created through the shifting emphasis from one word to another. Whereas, amphiboly or a fallacy of faulty or careless sentence-structure (Engel, 2000) refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax. In other words, it is resulted from the ambiguity of grammatical structure and it may be stated deliberately or accidentally. The third and fourth kinds of verbal fallacies are quite related. The fallacies occur when they made an argument based on only the single part or the whole part. Tamayao (2008) identified composition as a kind of fallacy which argues from some property of constituent parts to the conclusion that the whole (composite) item has that property. On the other hand, division fallacy is the opposite of composition fallacy. This fallacy occurs where the arguments are generalized based on the whole parts to measure a single part. People may call these two fallacies as a failure of making inductive and deductive reasoning. The fifth kind of verbal fallacies is equivocation. Tamayao (2008) identified equivocation as the fallacy of using a word in two senses in an argument that leads to easy confusion as at least one of the meanings is likely to be false. In other words, equivocation occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical (Powers, 1995). The last kind of verbal fallacies is figure of speech. Rescher (2001) explained that this fallacy occurs as the confusion between the metaphorical or figurative use of a word or phrase and the ordinary or literal use of a word or phrase. This can happen in conjunction with equivocation, whereby word or phrase is used literally in one part of an argument but figuratively in another part of the argument. Among six types of verbal fallacies, the writer takes five types of verbal fallacies to be the concern of this study. They are amphiboly, figure of speech, division, composition and equivocation. The accent measures more on the performance rather than the content of the speech.

Persuasive Speech There are three types of speech used in the discourse. They are speeches to inform, speeches to persuade and actuate, and speeches on special occasions (Ehninger, et al., 1982). What makes them differ from one another is their purpose. The main purpose of a speech to inform is to secure understanding among listeners. On the other hand, speeches to persuade and actuate are designed to alter people’s beliefs about and attitudes toward phenomena, processes, or persons. The last type, speeches on special occasions are made based on situational demands and sensitivity to audience expectations. For instance, this speech is organized well based on special occasions such as speech of introduction, speech of tribute, speech of nomination, speech of good will, and speech to entertain. Looking back on the assumption of the study, the writer’s concern is on persuasive speech which provides arguments to be analyzed. Persuasive speech goal is to influence the beliefs and actions of the listeners. In attaining this goal, the speaker should supply valid arguments and motivations for the listeners’ thinking, behaving, or doing as the speaker recommends. Therefore, persuasive speech itself is classified into several types based on its essential content (Ehninger,.et al., 1982). Furthermore, he said that there are two major types of speech of which the purpose is to affect audience judgment – claim of fact and claim of value; and two types of messages which purpose is to alter audience behavior – claim of policy and claim of action. According to Ehninger,.et al. (1982), claim of fact is a kind of speech which presents the factual claims, asserts that the given states of affairs exist or that something is indeed true. The second type of persuasive speech is claim of value. Instead of asserting that something is true or not, the speaker will assert that something is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified or unjustified. Claim of value concerns in the intrinsic worth of the belief or action (Ehninger,. et al. 1982). Moreover, based on the types of messages which purpose is to alter audience behavior (Ehniger,. et al., 1982), persuasive speech provides a claim of policy and a claim of action. A claim policy recommends a course of action for which the speaker seeks the audience’s approval. Differ from the claim of policy, claim of action not only seeks the audience’s approval of some course of action, but also goes a step farther, specifying the actions to be taken by the audience, as an individual or as a group which includes some propositions (Ehninger,. et al., 1982). If those claims above are almost all fulfilled by the speaker, then it is possible to call the persuasive speech made as a good one since those claims indirectly become the specific purpose of the persuasive speech as mentioned by Dale and Wolf (1988).

Research Methodology In analyzing the arguments of ECW speech contestants, each of the contestant speeches were recorded. Three speeches were picked out to be transcribed as they had almost fulfilled the ECW Speech Contest requirement in which each of the contestants was asked to conduct a speech about 8-10 minutes with the topic Superhero IC Student. Among six contestants, three of them had conducted speech for about 6-9 minutes and the rests were under six minutes. More arguments were produced in the longer duration of speeches. After being transcribed, the transcripts were shown to each chosen contestants to be confirmed whether they had been the right contents of the speech. Some corrections were taken place since there were some mistakes. Then, several readings were done. The first reading was used for understanding the context of each speech. Next, the second reading was used for identifying the argument components (claim, data and warrant). After that, the fourth reading was used for identifying the verbal fallacies (amphiboly, figure of speech, composition, division and equivocation. Finally, the last reading was used for confirming if there were data left uncategorized, before putting the data into the checklist. Below are the examples of the checklists used by the writer to analyze the contestants’ arguments.
Table 1 The example of Argument Components’ Checklist
|Claim |
|(The main point of the argument, the speaker’s thesis statement or main idea.) |
| You can be a superhero for your surroundings. |
|Data |Warrant |
|(The evidence, opinions, reasoning, examples and factual |(The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the|
|information about the claim) |claim) |
|Superhero is just an ordinary person who is willing to |You can be a superhero by helping your parents, relatives, |
|help others, and make some changes for a better world. |friends, and neighbors. |

Table 2 The example of Verbal Fallacies’ Checklist
|Verbal Fallacies |Statements |
|Amphiboly |A doctor wanted to operate on the patient, but he died before |
|The grammatical structure of one of the argument’s |surgery. |
|statements causes ambiguity (more than one meaning |(This sentence is ambiguous, the word “he” can refer to the doctor,|
|or interpretation) to the statement as it is used |or the patient.) |
|in the argument. | |
|Figure of Speech |Since the doctor canceled his heart surgery, his heart started |
|The confusion between the metaphorical or |aching. |
|figurative use of a word or a phrase and the |(The word “heart” is used twice, the second usage is confusing, |
|literal one. |whether he felt disappointed or |
|Equivocation |Eating porridge is better than nothing. |
|The same word is used but has two or more different|Nothing is better than eating steak. |
|meanings, leading to easy confusion as at least one|Therefore, eating porridge is better than eating steak. |
|of the meanings is likely to be false. |(The use of word “nothing” has two different meaning. In the first |
| |sentence “nothing” means “nothing to eat at all” while the second |
| |“nothing” means “no other food”) |
|Composition |Every doctor in this plastic surgery team is a professor, so the |
|The arguments are generalized based on a single |operation will always run successfully. |
|part to measure the whole parts |(This is fallacious since a professor is also a human being that |
| |can make mistakes) |
|Division |No fallacy dealing with division is found. It means that the |
|The arguments are generalized based on the whole |contestant has made the right generalizations by not measuring a |
|parts to measure a single part |single part based on the whole part. |

Above are the examples of the checklist used by the writer in identifying the argument components and the verbal fallacies in the contestants’ speeches. After the last reading, the writer put all the data into the two checklists above to answer the two research questions. The theory of six interrelated components of argument by Toulmin (as cited in Fulkerson, 1996) is used for making the checklist of argument components. Moreover, the theory of verbal fallacies by Aristotle (as cited in Engel, 2000) is used for making the checklist of verbal fallacies.

The Findings and Discussions
The Findings and Discussions of Argument Components The finding of argument components refers to the first research question which is, “Which components of arguments are found in the contestants’ arguments?” The three essential parts of an argument is used as the parameters of a good argument. If an argument contains all the three essential parts of an argument, then it can be justified as a good one. Below is the table for summarizing the finding of each speech contestant.

Table 3 The Finding of Argument Components
| |Contestant 1 |Contestant 2 |Contestant 3 |
|Claim |2 claims are stated |6 claims are stated |5 claims are stated |
| |(Claim of fact and claim of |(2 claims of fact, 2 claims of |(4 claims of fact and 1 claim of |
| |action) |action and 2 claims of value) |action) |
|Data |7 data are presented |10 data are presented |8 data are presented |
| |(2 data for supporting the claim |(4 data for supporting the claims|(6 data for supporting the claims|
| |of fact and 5 data for supporting|of value, 2 data for supporting |of fact and 2 data for supporting|
| |the claim of action) |the claims of fact and 4 data for|the claims of action) |
| | |supporting the claims of action) | |
|Warrant |6 warrants are explicitly stated |9 warrants are explicitly stated |6 warrants are explicitly stated |
| |(1 warrant for linking the data |( 3 warrants for linking the data|(4 warrants for linking the data |
| |and claim of fact; and 5 warrants|and claims of value; 2 warrants |and claims of fact; and 2 |
| |for linking the data and claim of|for linking the data and claims |warrants for linking the data and|
| |action) |of fact; and 4 warrants for |claims of action) |
| | |linking the data and claims of | |
| | |action) | |

From the finding, it is found that first contestant stated the least claims. She only stated two claims which were claim of fact and claim of action. Since the topic was about Superhero IC Student, the first contestant focused more on the way of becoming a superhero IC student. Therefore, she presented more data to support her claim of action. There were five warrants that are explicitly stated to link the data and the claim of action. Looking at the first research question, the first contestant had produced all the three essential argument components which were claim, data and warrant. Although she presented less claims than the other two contestant, she had a strong claim of action which supported by some data and warrants. As it is presented in the Table 3, the second contestant stated more claims than the other two contestants. He stated claims of value, claims of fact and claims of action. That was different from the other two contestants whom presented only claims of fact and claims of value. The various claims stated by the second contestant showed that he had stronger arguments about the topic since claims are the main point of the argument itself. As it is stated by Dale and Wolf (1988) that a good persuasive speech should assert various kinds of claims, which are claim of fact, claim of action, claim of value and claim of policy. The second contestant also presented more data than the other two contestants. He brought some examples of heroes such as, Soekarno, Thomas Alfa Edison and also our parents and best friends. He also gave the steps of becoming a superhero in our daily life such as, joining choir if we are good at singing and helping our friends in understanding lessons. Besides, he brought up one title of song about superhero to motivate the audience to become a superhero. Moreover, the second contestant explicitly stated more warrants than the other two contestants. In linking his ten data to the six claims, he stated nine warrants explicitly. Thus, looking at the first research question, the second contestant had produced all the three essential part of argument components. He presented his claims with adequate data and warrants. The third contestant, however, had presented a strong claim of fact deal with the speech topic. He presented four claims of fact that were supported with six data and four warrants. Looking at the type of the speech, the ECW Speech Contest was a persuasive speech. Ehinger, et al. (1982), stated that there are two major types of speech of which the purpose is to affect audience judgment – claim of fact and claim of value; and two types of messages which purpose is to alter audience behavior – claim of policy and claim of action. Thus, the third contestant concerned more on affecting audience judgment about superhero IC student rather than altering audience behavior to be a superhero IC student. He presented more factual data to change the audience judgment toward a superhero which was widely known as a fiction character. However, the third contestant had produced all the essential components of an argument through his speech. To conclude, all the three essential components which are claim, data and warrant were found in the contestants’ speech. Most of the claims were concerned on claims of fact and claims of action as the type of the speech is a persuasive speech. The claims were supported with adequate data and the data were linked well to the claims. Thus, the contestants had produced a good argument.

The Findings and Discussions of Verbal Fallacies The finding of verbal fallacies refers to the second research question which is, “Are there any possible fallacies produced in the arguments of contestants’ speech?” Among six types of verbal fallacies, five are picked as the parameters in finding the fallacies which are amphiboly, figure of speech, division, composition and equivocation. If an argument contains almost five kinds of verbal fallacies, then it can be justified as a bad one. The table for summarizing the finding of each contestant is presented as follows.

Table 4 The Finding of Verbal Fallacies
| |Contestant 1 |Contestant 2 |Contestant 3 |
|Amphiboly |No fallacy dealing with amphiboly is |No fallacy dealing with amphiboly is |No fallacy dealing with amphiboly |
| |found. |found. |is found. |
| |It means that the contestant has |It means that the contestant has |It means that the contestant has |
| |constructed a good grammatical |constructed a good grammatical |constructed a good grammatical |
| |structure of argument without any |structure of argument without any |structure of argument without any |
| |ambiguous statement. |ambiguous statement. |ambiguous statement. |
|Figure of Speech |No fallacy dealing with figure of |No fallacy dealing with figure of |No fallacy dealing with figure of |
| |speech is found. It means that the |speech is found. It means that the |speech is found. It means that the |
| |contestant has used the proper literal|contestant has used the proper |contestant has used the proper |
| |words. |literal words. |literal words. |
|Division |No fallacy dealing with division is |No fallacy dealing with division is |No fallacy dealing with division is|
| |found. It means that the contestant |found. It means that the contestant |found. It means that the contestant|
| |has made the right generalizations by |has made the right generalizations by|has made the right generalizations |
| |not measuring a single part based on |not measuring a single part based on |by not measuring a single part |
| |the whole part. |the whole part. |based on the whole part. |
|Composition |No fallacy dealing with composition is|No fallacy dealing with composition |No fallacy dealing with composition|
| |found. It means that the contestant |is found. It means that the |is found. It means that the |
| |has made the right generalizations by |contestant has made the right |contestant has made the right |
| |not measuring the whole parts based on|generalizations by not measuring the |generalizations by not measuring |
| |the single part. |whole parts based on the single part.|the whole parts based on the single|
| | | |part. |
|Equivocation |No fallacy dealing with equivocation |No fallacy dealing with equivocation |No fallacy dealing with |
| |is found. It means that contestant has|is found. It means that contestant |equivocation is found. It means |
| |made no single word or phrase is |has made no single word or phrase is |that contestant has made no single |
| |having two distinct meanings |having two distinct meanings |word or phrase is having two |
| | | |distinct meanings |

As it is presented on Table 4, there were no fallacies found in the contestants’ speeches. The contestants made some grammatical errors, but they did not affect the meaning of the arguments stated. Thus, it could be concluded that the contestant did not produce any verbal fallacies during their speech. The contestants had produced good arguments which were clear and brief so that it did not contain any verbal fallacies. Answering the second research question, the writer found no verbal fallacies in the contestants’ speeches. This could happen because they had no background on verbal fallacies that they did not produce the fallacies deliberately to attract audience’s attention. Besides, they had prepared the speech well so that they selected the words properly based on the speech topic. They tried their best to state their arguments briefly and clearly so that the audience would understand the arguments stated by the contestants.

Conclusion After identifying and classifying the data of the contestants’ speeches, the writer found out the answer to the research questions dealt with the argument components and verbal fallacies. The writer found all the essential components of argument which were claim, data and warrant. All the three contestants had produced good arguments. They had produced claims of action, claims of fact and claims of fact. Besides, they had presented adequate data to support their claims. Moreover, they linked the data and the claim very well. Thus, it can be concluded that they had produced good arguments in their persuasive speech. The writer also found out that they produced no verbal fallacies in their speech. Although they had stated many arguments, the writer found that the contestants produced purely grammatical errors that did not affect the meaning of the arguments stated. Since the contestants were still in the first semester, they had no background on the verbal fallacies. Thus, they stated clear and brief arguments to persuade the audience. Overall, the contestants had produced good arguments in their speeches. They had stated strong claims with adequate data and warrants. Besides they produced no verbal fallacies. It made the arguments clear and brief. However, among the three contestants, the second contestant made the strongest claim and presented many data to support his claims. Besides, he linked the data and the claims very well. Those what the writer concluded.

Suggestions Due to the limited time, the concern of this study is only on arguments components and verbal fallacies. Therefore, for the future study, it is recommended that the concern of the study be broader. For instance, the future study should concern not only with the verbal fallacies but also with the material fallacies. Moreover, since the speech contestant is a simple subject to be researched on, the future study can choose a debate competition’s team as the subject of the study since the argumentation will be more challenging and complex. As there are not many students of Widya Mandala Catholic University who study about the verbal fallacies and argument analysis, the study is expected to be able to give useful information about how to compose good persuasive speeches for lecturers and students. It is also expected that the study can be used as the references for the Speech Contest organized by the English Department Student Association, in holding the next speech contest with more challenging topics. Moreover, for the next speech contestants, this study is helpful as the reference of composing a good persuasive speech since this study figures out the arguments’ components and the verbal fallacies of the ECW Speech Contest 2012. Thus, the next contestants can learn how to compose a good one by eliminating the verbal fallacies made by the previous winner and take the good one from it also.

Bibliography

Chaney, A.L., and T.L. Burk. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8. Boston: Allyn&Bacon.

Dale, Paulette and James C. Wolf. 1988. Speech Communication for International Students. Prentice Hall Regents.

Ehninger, Douglas, B. Gronbeck, R.E. McKerrow and A. H. Monroe. 1982. Speech Communication Principles. Addison Wesley School

Engel, Morris S. 2000. With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies. Boston: Bedford-St. Martin’s.

Fulkerson, Richard. 1996. Teaching Argument in Writing. National Council of Teachers of English

Pickard, W.A. 2007. On Sophistical Refutations. Retrieved on November 2012 from http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/sophistical/complete.html

Powers. Lawrence H. 1995. Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press

Rescher, Nicholas. 2001. Verbal Fallacies. Retrieved on January 2014 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/200836/fallacy/280531/Verbal-fallacies

Tamayao, Michael Jhon M. 2008. Material Fallacies. Retrieved on January 2014 from http://tamayaologic.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/material-fallacies1.ppt

Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. 2006. Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Walton, D., Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.