From Latin, just meaning: “after this, therefore because of this“
This fallacy is committed when its author assumes that, since one event follows another one, the former was caused by the latter.
Ontario’s immigration to Alberta increased. Soon after, social care spending also increased. Therefore, the immigration increase is what caused the social care spending to rise.
I took a Stop-Sneezing pill, and two days later my cold was over.
To refute it
You have to prove that this correlation is a coincidence by explaining the following:
-the effect would have happened even if the alleged cause had not occurred. Or else:
-the effect was caused by something other than the proposed cause.
Whenever the source is not referenced, both definitions and examples have been extracted from a translation of Jaime Wilson [email protected] based on Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies. Copyright 1995-1998 Stephen Downes. Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.
These texts have been modified by Miguel A. Lerma and now by us to adapt them -and those taken from Wikipedia- to our format.