Logical thinking skills are increasingly emphasized as a fundamental ability across various disciplines. In the context of logical thinking education, learning from erroneous arguments is considered a promising method. This study proposes a structured pedagogical framework for examining erroneous arguments through fallacy-based transformations and argument reconstruction. Traditional methods, such as the correct explanation method or the counterexample method, can indicate errors by presenting the correct argument or by providing evidence of error. However, they do not systematically explain why the original argument is incorrect. The proposed method reconstructs a logically valid argument by applying fallacy-based transformations to the original erroneous argument, enabling a structured explanation of the errors. This study focuses on arguments based on multiple modus ponens, a standard form of formal argumentation. In this framework, fallacy-based transformations are applied to one of the three components—minor premise, major premise, or conclusion—in a fallacious argument, reconstructing a correct argument by adjusting the erroneous component. By providing a systematic means of distinguishing fallacious and correct arguments, this method is expected to be particularly beneficial for learners with lower logical proficiency. Furthermore, it is designed for easy integration into educational contexts without requiring extensive modifications to existing curricula. In this paper, we detail the argument analysis method and present the results of an experimental evaluation demonstrating its effectiveness.