Post Hoc (False Cause)
Fallacy Summary: Assume B followed A because A caused B.
Temporal order is mistaken for causation without ruling out coincidence or other drivers. Research context: Informal-logic and argumentation research treats fallacies as structural problems in reasoning. A conclusion can sound persuasive while still being weak if the link between premises, evidence, and conclusion is not valid. Pattern-specific focus: Assume B followed A because A caused B. Practical review method: separate factual claims from interpretation, check source quality, and test whether the conclusion survives alternative explanations.
No recent 90%+ example is available for this reasoning.
How to recognize post hoc (false cause) yourself
- A rhetorical move replaces proof (for example, popularity, authority, or insult).
- Causation is claimed without ruling out alternatives or coincidence.
- The argument is reduced to an artificial either/or choice.
- Emotion is used to drive agreement where evidence should carry the burden.
Verification questions
- Which premise is doing the critical work, and is it actually supported?
- Does the conclusion logically follow, or does rhetoric bridge the gap?
- What alternative explanation would still fit the observed facts?
Failed to load people summary; Failed to load publications summary; Failed to load article summary
No cohort chart data available.
High offenders
Authors
No offenders available.
Publications
No offenders available.