Sentence examples for an error in reasoning from inspiring English sources

In factual, explanatory prose, ambiguity is considered an error in reasoning or diction; in literary prose or poetry, it often functions to increase the richness and subtlety of language and to imbue it with a complexity that expands the literal meaning of the original statement.

A personal (or "ad hominem") attack — rebutting a policy argument by attacking something about the person making the argument rather than the argument itself — is a form of error in reasoning (or "logical fallacy").

Halo effect, error in reasoning in which an impression formed from a single trait or characteristic is allowed to influence multiple judgments or ratings of unrelated factors.

We would not charge her with having made some perceptual error or a mistake in reasoning.

While points were not usually deducted for an incorrect answer, on the rare occasion when an answer was selected that was associated with a serious error in fundamental reasoning, a single penalty point was deducted from the student's score to emphasize that error.

Quite generally, psychological studies reveal widespread errors in reasoning in a broad range of contexts.

However, in the realm of origin-fixation dynamics, these are errors in reasoning: they result from applying a theory of causes that doesn't fit, based on a theory of evolution that doesn't fit.

By contrast, poor listeners were seen as competitive — as listening only to identify errors in reasoning or logic, using their silence as a chance to prepare their next response.

Two errors in reasoning from the data then can occur: a true idea is rejected (making a Type I error), or a false idea is accepted (Type II error).

A paralogism is "the type of fallacy in which an error of reasoning is typically committed by failing to meet some necessary requirement of an argumentation scheme" whereas "the sophism type of fallacy is a sophistical tactic used to try to unfairly get the best of a speech partner in an exchange of arguments" (2010, 171; see also 1995, 254).

Humans can show significant errors in reasoning about physically transforming objects (McCloskey, 1983; Pani, 1997).