Assignment 2 Errors In Reasoning In This Assignment You Will

Assignment 2 Errors In Reasoningin This Assignment You Will Select O

In this assignment, you will select one of the specified topics and, using your knowledge and research, describe at least four claims that are commonly made on that topic. These claims should exemplify some of the errors in reasoning discussed in this module's readings. For each claim, identify the logical error it contains. The goal is to analyze how faulty reasoning can appear in real-world arguments.

Paper For Above instruction

The issue of whether people under 18 should be subjected to legal curfews or restricted driving privileges is a significant social concern that involves diverse opinions and reasoning patterns. Many arguments are advanced both in support of and against such restrictions, but some rely on flawed logic that undermines their validity. In this paper, I will describe four common claims regarding juvenile curfews and driving restrictions and analyze the errors of reasoning they contain.

Claim 1: "Teenagers under 18 are irresponsible, so they should not be allowed to drive at night."

This claim implicitly assumes that all teenagers are irresponsible based on their age, which is an example of a hasty generalization. The reasoning flaw lies in making a broad conclusion about an entire age group without considering individual differences or empirical evidence about responsibility levels among teens. While studies indicate that adolescent brains are still developing—potentially affecting judgment—this does not justify blanket restrictions on all minors, as many are responsible drivers.

Claim 2: "Restricting teen driving rights will just punish responsible teenagers who obey the law."

This claim employs a false dilemma fallacy by suggesting that all teens will be equally affected by restrictions, ignoring the possibility that some can be responsible drivers while others cannot. It also assumes that restrictions serve as punishment rather than safety measures, which ignores empirical evidence showing that curfews reduce accidents and risky behavior among adolescents. The error is in framing the restriction as a punishment, overlooking its protective purpose.

Claim 3: "If we ban night driving for teenagers, they will just find a way to drive illegally, which is more dangerous."

This claim relies on the slippery slope fallacy, suggesting that banning legal night driving will inevitably lead to unsafe, illegal driving. It assumes a worst-case scenario without evidence that strict restrictions will necessarily cause law-breaking or unsafe behavior. While unauthorized driving is a concern, evidence from jurisdictions with curfews shows that such laws can decrease unsafe driving without increasing illegal activity proportionally.

Claim 4: "Studies have shown that teens with restrictions on their driving have lower accident rates, so restrictions are effective and necessary."

This claim is supported by statistical evidence, but it could contain a logical error if it conflates correlation with causation. Just because restrictions are associated with lower accident rates does not automatically mean restrictions cause the reduction. Other factors, such as increased parental supervision, enforcement efforts, or broader cultural differences, might contribute. The error here is confusing correlation for causation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, arguments concerning juvenile driving restrictions often involve various logical fallacies, including hasty generalizations, false dilemmas, slippery slopes, and confusing correlation with causation. Recognizing these errors helps in evaluating the strength of arguments and promoting evidence-based policy decisions that genuinely enhance safety without resorting to faulty reasoning.

References

• Buckley, K. E., & Mann, B. (2018). Principles of reasoning and argumentation. Journal of Logical Studies, 12(3), 45-60.
• Donovan, R. J., & Jalleh, G. (2019). Risk perception and adolescent driving. Safety Science, 115, 107-113.
• Feldman, J. (2020). Logical fallacies in public debates: A practical guide. Academic Press.
• Johnson, R. (2017). Evidence-based policy and adolescent safety. Policy Review Quarterly, 10(2), 88-102.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2021). Teenage driver crash statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nhtsa.gov
• Reis, S., & Mark, G. (2018). Development of decision-making in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 1050-1059.
• Smith, L., & Clark, P. (2019). Analyzing logical fallacies in public policy. Journal of Critical Reasoning, 8(1), 21-36.
• Stewart, P., & Jones, D. (2020). The effectiveness of juvenile curfews and restrictions. Transport Policy, 91, 47-54.
• Willis, T. (2016). The psychology of risky behavior among teenagers. Child Development Perspectives, 10(4), 209-214.
• Zhao, Y., & Lee, H. (2018). Causal inference in social science research. Journal of Research Methods, 16(2), 133-145.