I have learned a general formula for a path/line integral
$$ \int_a^b f\left(\mathbf{r}(t)\right) \|\mathbf{r}'(t)\|\ dt \tag{1} $$
and I'm trying to better understand it. Specifically, I'm wondering what's not right about this:
$$ \int_a^b f\left(\mathbf{r}(t)\right)\ dt \tag{2} $$
If I try to work out what's happening in $(2)$, I reason that $f(\mathbf{r}(t))$ is the value of the field $f$ at the point $\mathbf{r}(t)$ for some $t$. As you vary $t$ from $a$ to $b$, the sum of those values $f(\mathbf{r}(t))$ seems to me like the value of the whole path, i.e. the path integral. Clearly, there's a gap in my understanding.
I do feel that I understand the similar formula for the arc length $s$ for the same path
$$ s = \int_a^b \|\mathbf{r}'(t)\|\ dt \tag{3} $$
from geometry, so I understand extending $(3)$ to $(1)$ by simply including the scalar field $f$. But, I think knowing what $(2)$ does mean might help me really take things to the next level.
This got me thinking to come up with a good example to demonstrate the problem with (2).
Lets say we want to find $\int_{-1}^1x^2\>dx$
But we want to do it the hard way: by a path integral. So we take: $\mathbf{r}(t) = 2x^{n} - 1$ (this just goes from -1 to 1 as t goes from 0 to 1) and solve the following integral instead:
$\int_{0}^1(2x^{n} - 1)^2\>dt$
This is your (2). Now note what happens for big k (this is the graph for $\mathbf{r}(t) = 2x^{101} - 1$):
Now you see that this will spend 'most of it's time' at practically -1. So if we evaluate (2) with this $\mathbf{r}(t)$, we will basically just compute:
$\int_{0}^1(2x^{101} - 1)^2\>dt = \int_{0}^1(-1)^2\>dt = 1$
So now you see why it's important to take into consideration the derivative of $\mathbf{r}(t)$, because when it's close to zero, we really aren't moving the region that we are integrating over, so we don't want to count it.