Which reasoning error is made when someone states that Steve's hunting violation doesn’t matter because it’s just one duck?

The reasoning error present in the statement about Steve's hunting violation is best described as "Not Drawing the Line." This error occurs when someone minimizes or dismisses the importance of an act by suggesting it is insignificant due to its small scale. In this case, the argument suggests that because the violation involves "just one duck," it is not worth considering serious.

This type of reasoning fails to recognize that even minor violations can contribute to larger patterns of behavior that have significant consequences. By focusing only on the individual instance and disregarding the broader implications of such actions, one overlooks the collective impact of many small infractions, which can lead to more extensive harm in conservation efforts or wildlife management.

The other options do not accurately capture the essence of this reasoning error. Causal oversimplification deals with attributing an effect to a single cause when multiple factors are at play. Prejudice involves harboring unfair feelings or opinions about a group and does not apply to the argument about the duck. Wishful thinking refers to believing something because one wishes it to be true, which does not relate to the dismissal of the violation's seriousness.