Logical  Fallacy: a error in reasoning
  (adj)     (noun)

List Of Fallacies
Play More

About This Game

Feedback Here
Or On Facebook

Statement #172 Discussion

2 comments (1 thead)
All Discussions

Below is the statement as it appears with the fallacy marked as correct. You can see the totals of most frequent responses to this statement. And after reading the any discussion going on below, you can select your choice(s) for the correct answer. For now, whoever posts each statement can update corrections.
We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS.
Ignoring a Common Cause
AKA Questionable Cause

Category: Fallacies of Presumption → Casual Fallacies

This fallacy has the following general structure:

  1. A and B are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for).
  2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B.

In many cases, the fallacy is quite evident. For example, if a person claimed that a person's sneezing was caused by her watery eyes and he simply ignored the fact that the woman was standing in a hay field, he would have fallen prey to the fallacy of ignoring a common cause. In this case, it would be reasonable to conclude that the woman's sneezing and watering eyes was caused by an allergic reaction of some kind. In other cases, it is not as evident that the fallacy is being committed. For example, a doctor might find a large amount of bacteria in one of her patients and conclude that the bacteria are the cause of the patient's illness. However, it might turn out that the bacteria are actually harmless and that a virus is weakening the person, Thus, the viruses would be the actual cause of the illness and growth of the bacteria (the viruses would weaken the ability of the person's body to resist the growth of the bacteria).

As noted in the discussion of other causal fallacies, causality is a rather difficult matter. However, it is possible to avoid this fallacy by taking due care. In the case of Ignoring a Common Cause, the key to avoiding this fallacy is to be careful to check for other factors that might be the actual cause of both the suspected cause and the suspected effect. If a person fails to check for the possibility of a common cause, then they will commit this fallacy. Thus, it is always a good idea to always ask "could there be a third factor that is actually causing both A and B?"

Click For Fallacy Description

 850 Total Answer Attempts   33%
 280 Correctly Popped Fallacies
 570 Incorrectly Un/Popped
posted by wikiworldorder     
( Random Image )

Most Common Responses

280 - Ignoring a Common Cause
57 - Hasty Generalization
53 - Post Hoc
47 - Confusing Cause and Effect
44 - Slippery Slope
29 - Guilt by Association
28 - Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief
26 - Red Herring
25 - False Dilemma
23 - Biased Generalization
22 - Circumstantial Ad Hominem
20 - Misleading Vividness
19 - Fallacy of Composition
19 - Appeal to Fear
17 - Burden of Proof
15 - Poisoning the Well
14 - Begging the Question
12 - Appeal to Emotion
11 - Appeal to Ridicule
10 - Genetic Fallacy
10 - Gambler's Fallacy
9 - Relativist Fallacy
8 - Appeal to Pity
6 - Appeal to Tradition
5 - Appeal to Common Practice
5 - Special Pleading
5 - Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
5 - Fallacy of Division
4 - Appeal to Spite
4 - Appeal to Popularity
4 - Ad Hominem
3 - Middle Ground
3 - Appeal to Novelty
2 - Appeal to Belief
2 - Personal Attack
2 - Appeal to Flattery
1 - Peer Pressure
1 - Appeal to Authority

Likes for Correct Answers

Show all on page ↑

Show All Comments On One Page
Threads Sorted by Date - Sort by Likes
Ignoring common cause is not...
The correct fallacy is: post hoc /ˌpōst ˈhäk/ adjective occurring or done after the event, especially with reference to the fallacious assumption that the occurrence in question has a logical relationship with the event it follows. "a post hoc justification for the changes" adverb after the event. In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. [1][2] The complementary idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"). This differs from the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), in which an event following another is seen as a necessary consequence of the former event.

10.2.19 06:08 by StephaneBlouin
0      0

  + Reply 1 comment downstream. Please read it before replying.


Play Game - Fallacy List - Add Statements - Player Collections - Discussions

Login - High Scores - About - Trivium - Links - Contact

Donate To DontFallacy.Me - Support Dr. Labossiere

Creative Commons, 2014, Wiki World Order (Morgan Lesko)

* Fallacious statements are usually paired with a random image of a person who never spoke those words.
This free site is for educational purposes, studying intellectual dishonesty. The images are being used under fair use. Sunflower by robstephaustrali.