The paper "Critical Thinking - Fallacies" is a worthy example of an essay on psychology. Errors in reasoning are continually engulfing the contemporary arguments hence transforming comprehension, message, and intention. Of controversy is the ability to identify logical fallacies, which is increasingly becoming rare (Holt, 2006). Evidently, fallacious reasoning shield people from identifying the truth. A logical fallacy is a bad piece of reasoning grouped into formal and informal categories based on a technical sense that the argument derives. Formal or deductive fallacies offer a water-tight argument that directly connects the premise to a conclusion.
This is a fatal error in reasoning that has left logisticians and other experts questioning the logical truth. Technically, a logical error in deductive reasoning makes the whole argument fallacious (Holt, 2006). Logical errors can also occur in informal arguments with limited certainty. The probability of establishing conclusions, for instance, exposes rational choices to logical tests. The strict sense of might fails to establish the validity of the conclusion hence failing to meet even the standard of deductive validity (Holt, 2006). In this light, identification of informal and logical error becomes complex considering the wide and inferential capacity to re-shape. Therefore, people commit fallacious mistakes in a day to day sequence.
Nevertheless, both formal and informal arguments present a substantial level of errors in reasoning that requires further understanding. The complexity in the identification of logical errors may become ideal if presumption, relevance, and ambiguity get a center stage in arguments. In conclusion, the ability to identify fallacious reasoning also contributes to fallacy. The misleading techniques create a false dilemma in reasoning that loosely leaves arguments to presumption.
For this reason, evidence should be a critical element in questioning and interpreting fallacies.