Which statement best describes the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

• A. It assumes causation from sequence; just because A followed B doesn't mean B caused A.
• B. It attacks the character of a person instead of evaluating the argument.
• C. It uses statistics from a biased sample to reach a conclusion.
• D. It relies on appeal to authority without independent evidence.

Answer: (A)

The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy arises when you infer that one event caused another simply because it followed it in time. In this statement, A happening after B is noted, but that alone doesn’t prove that B caused A. There could be coincidence, another factor at work, or even reverse causation. To truly establish causation, you’d need additional evidence beyond temporal order—such as controlled experiments or a plausible mechanism linking B to A. This choice accurately captures the idea that sequence alone does not establish causation. Other options describe different fallacies (attacking the person, biased statistics, appeal to authority), which aren’t about inferring causation from sequence.