What type of argument involves reasoning that contradicts the conclusion drawn?

The concept at the heart of an invalid argument is that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises presented, which means that it's possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. In other words, in an invalid argument, the reasoning does not provide adequate support for the conclusion. Therefore, if reasoning contradicts the conclusion drawn, it implies the argument is built on a flawed logical foundation, making it invalid.

For instance, if someone argues that "all birds can fly" and concludes that penguins can fly based on that premise, the reasoning is flawed because the premise is not universally accurate. Consequently, the conclusion drawn is not logically valid.

In contrast, inconsistent arguments hold contradictory premises, while sound arguments are both valid and based on true premises. Circular reasoning refers to when the conclusion is used as a premise, thus not providing new information or support for the conclusion. These distinctions highlight why the nature of the invalid argument is central to the query about reasoning that contradicts the conclusion.