A reasoning error is a flaw in an argument based on its logical structure. Common examples include begging, generalizations, and slippery slope fallacies. Other errors include straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks. These informal fallacies occur when some aspect of the logic within an argument is flawed, making the argument weak or unsupported.
A reasoning error is basically a flaw in an argument that someone makes based on the logical structure of the argument itself. There are many different types of reasoning errors, as this is a broad category often used to indicate that the error exists as a function of the logic within the argument itself. Common examples of this type of fallacy include begging, generalizations, and slippery slope fallacies. A reasoning error can also consist of a number of other errors, including a straw man argument and ad hominem attacks or arguments.
Also called an informal fallacy, a reasoning error occurs within informal logic, which uses structural concepts on mathematical formulas to infer the strength of an argument. This type of error usually occurs because some aspect of the logic within an argument is inherently flawed, so the argument is therefore considered weak or unsupported. Such a fallacy of reasoning does not mean that the point a person is trying to make is true or false, it simply indicates the strength of the argument itself and how well supported it is.
There are many different ways a reasoning error can be created, such as asking the question. Also known as circular logic, question begging occurs when someone uses the idea that they are arguing as support for the argument itself. An example would be the statement “Blocking is wrong because stealing is immoral” because the person making the statement uses what he is trying to prove as evidence.
Slippery generalizations and fallacies often occur when someone tries to use data to support an argument incorrectly. A generalization usually occurs when someone has a small amount of information or a small sample of a population and extrapolates that information into a much larger context than is appropriate. Slippery slopes typically occur when someone makes a causal connection between two ideas or events that aren’t directly connected by provable data or logical argument.
Other common types of reasoning fallacy include a straw man argument. This fallacy occurs when someone attacks a weak or irrelevant aspect of an argument made by someone else, rather than the real point of the argument itself. For example, if someone said “Guns must be legal for people to protect themselves”, then a straw man argument could take the form of “Guns are used by criminals to kill others, therefore guns are dangerous and should be illegal”. This argument does not address the actual claim made by the first person, so it is fallacious and does not strengthen the second person’s position.
Such arguments are similar to another type of reasoning error, known as an ad hominem attack or argument. This type of attack seeks to discredit the person making an argument, rather than address the argument itself. If a convicted felon was advocating for more lenient sentences for people convicted of lesser drug possession, someone against this idea might point out character flaws in the convicted felon rather than addressing the real merits or faults of his ideas.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
