Which type of reasoning is indicated when concluding Daugherty is the reason for the team's wins based on game outcomes?

The correct type of reasoning in this scenario is causation. Causation refers to the identification of a cause-and-effect relationship, where one event or factor is directly responsible for the occurrence of another. In this case, concluding that Daugherty is the reason for the team's wins based on the analysis of game outcomes suggests that Daugherty's performance or actions are believed to directly contribute to the positive results of the games. This form of reasoning assumes that there is a direct link between Daugherty's contributions and the team's success, highlighting a clear cause-and-effect relationship.

In contrast, the other options imply different logical relationships. Concurrence would suggest that Daugherty's performance aligns with winning but does not establish a direct cause. Faulty analogy would involve comparing Daugherty's influence to another scenario where the reasoning might be flawed due to dissimilarities. Reduction typically involves oversimplifying a complex argument into more basic parts, which does not fit the conclusion drawn here about wins being directly attributed to Daugherty's role. Thus, causation accurately describes the reasoning detailed in the scenario.