The chief's belief that a lion's tooth will prevent malaria exemplifies which logical fallacy?

The belief that a lion's tooth will prevent malaria exemplifies wishful thinking because it demonstrates a reliance on a hopeful yet unfounded assumption rather than a logical or evidence-based reasoning approach. Wishful thinking occurs when someone holds onto a belief or conclusion simply because they desire it to be true, regardless of the lack of supporting evidence or logical connection. In this scenario, the chief may wish for a simple solution to a serious health issue, mistakenly attributing the protective power of a lion's tooth to his desire for safety from malaria.

Additionally, the other options do not accurately capture the essence of this belief. Causal oversimplification would suggest an inappropriate simplification of a complex cause-and-effect relationship, which isn't fully applicable here since the belief lacks any evidence of causation in the first place. Inconceivability refers to the belief that something is not possible or imaginable, which does not align with the chief's hopeful belief. Not drawing the line deals with the ambiguity in defining specific categories or differences, which does not pertain to the specific claim about malaria and the lion’s tooth either. Thus, wishful thinking is the most fitting characterization of the chief's belief in this context.