Assignment 2 Errors In Reasoning In This Assignment

Assignment 2 Errors In Reasoningin This Assignment You Will Select O

In this assignment, you will select one of the provided topics and describe at least four claims commonly made about the topic that display errors in reasoning. For each claim, identify the specific error(s) in reasoning according to the module's readings. Additionally, explain the factors that indicate the presence of these errors. You should conduct research to find common claims related to your chosen topic, referencing credible sources as needed. The paper must be approximately 600 words, formatted in Microsoft Word, and follow APA standards for citations and references.

Paper For Above instruction

For this assignment, I have chosen the topic: Should people under 18 be subjected to legal curfews or restricted driving privileges? This topic is highly relevant in discussions about juvenile rights, safety, and legal restrictions. Below, I will present four claims commonly made about this topic, each illustrating a different error in reasoning. Furthermore, I will analyze each claim to identify the specific logical fallacy or error involved, supported by definitions and reasoning.

Claim 1: "All teenagers under 18 are reckless drivers, so imposing curfews and restrictions is necessary."

This claim exemplifies a hasty generalization fallacy. It assumes that because some teenagers may engage in reckless driving, all teenagers do, thereby justifying strict restrictions. The error here lies in overgeneralization based on limited or anecdotal evidence. According to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2020), such sweeping statements ignore individual differences and evidence from broader populations. The claim ignores data showing that many teenagers drive responsibly, and that reckless driving is associated with specific risk factors rather than age alone.

Claim 2: "Research by Dr. John Smith proves that curfews decrease teen accidents, so curfews should be mandated nationwide."

This claim contains an argument from mistaken authority, or appeal to authority fallacy. The reference to Dr. Smith presumes expertise solely based on his name, without verifying his credentials or the validity of his research. The fallacy is in trusting someone as a source of evidence without scrutinizing the methodology or legitimacy of the findings (Walton, 2010). An accurate evaluation requires examining whether Dr. Smith's research is peer-reviewed and widely supported by the scientific community.

Claim 3: "Everyone agrees that restricting teen driving hours will make roads safer, so it must be true."

This statement represents an appeal to common belief or bandwagon fallacy. It suggests that because many people believe in the effectiveness of curfews, they are necessarily effective. However, popular opinion does not equate to scientific evidence. As Plous (1993) notes, consensus can be mistaken, and public beliefs should be supported by empirical data rather than majority opinion.

Claim 4: "Studies have shown that states with strict curfews have fewer accidents among teens, so curfews cause fewer accidents."

This seemingly logical claim is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy. It assumes a causal relationship based solely on correlation. While the data may show an association between curfews and reduced accidents, it does not prove causation. Other factors—such as increased driver education, stricter enforcement, or cultural differences—could also contribute (Mackenzie, 2010). Thus, claiming causality ignores the possibility of confounding variables.

Conclusion

Analyzing these claims reveals the importance of critical thinking when evaluating arguments related to juvenile driving restrictions. Recognizing common errors like overgeneralization, mistaken authority, appeal to popular belief, and false causality helps in constructing and assessing more robust arguments. Policymakers and the public should base decisions on comprehensive evidence rather than fallacious reasoning, ensuring that laws about minors’ driving privileges are just, effective, and evidence-based.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
• Walton, D. (2010). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
• Mackenzie, D. (2010). Correlation does not imply causation. Journal of Statistical Reasoning, 5(2), 45-53.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019). Teen Drivers: Facts and Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/teen_drivers.html
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2021). Driver Behavior and Safety Measures. https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/teen-driving
• Savage, S. (2018). The impact of graduated driver licensing laws. Transportation Research Record, 2672(12), 115–124.
• Grasmick, H. G., & Arneklev, B. J. (1994). The impact of social bonds on delinquency: A longitudinal analysis. Criminology, 32(1), 47-66.
• Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of majority and legal responsibilities. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(8), 739–742.
• Feldman, A. (2019). Cognitive development and risk-taking in adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 55(3), 401-410.