Without getting into specifics, how many people would look at, say, a government following $YOUR_PREFERRED_ECONOMIC_SYSTEM and call it a long series of "mistakes"? But of course you know that $YPES is not a long series of mistakes, it's the way any right-thinking person knows it should be done. In fact they are making a mistake for preferring some other system over yours!.... or are they?
It's very easy to inaccurately diagnose problems and prescribe solutions, but it doesn't mean much without validation.
That is precisely the reason to have mentors and personal advisors.
My $.02
An example that I've observed, which doesn't quite fall in line with where the author went with it, but is interesting nonetheless, is when I get stuck solving a programming problem. When I'm showing others how to solve a problem of similar complexity, I seem to have more of my mind free to step through the pieces of the puzzle and can see solutions more clearly. It's like when I'm not using energy working on the problem and don't have any direct connection to it emotionally or otherwise, I can solve it more easily.
Another example of something in the same ballpark is a couple years ago I had errors on my credit report so I went to clear them up. I had to jump through a series of hoops to make that happen, and the whole process seemed like a big headache. It also was difficult to get the motivation to do it initially, even though I knew I needed to and understood the basic steps required. Fast-forward to a few months ago, and I had a friend that needed to dispute items on her credit report. I didn't dread jumping in to solve the problem, and even offered to help her fix it right then. Even though it was the same problem, the same complexity, and a similar time commitment, I had zero emotional attachment to the problem, and so I quickly dissected it into a step a, step b, step c process and got it done.
Begging the question: the premise assumes the conclusion, e.g., "that's illegal because it's against the law".
False dilemma: you present two possible options as the only options, when in fact there are other alternatives, e.g., "either you're with me or against me"