The 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacy (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this") is the mistake of assuming that because one event preceded a later event, the later event was caused by the preceding event. Since it is possible that the later event was caused by some other preceding event, one must provide more direct evidence for thinking there is a genuine causal relationship between the events in question .
Example #1:
In a widely-read article on cnn.com, the author, who argues that young people should vote for Obama, writes,
"Obama has acted aggressively on the issue most important to my generation: climate change. Our generation believes in healing the Earth. Between 2010 and 2011, the United States cut its foreign oil imports by 10%, or 1 million barrels a day. Domestic natural gas production has increased during each year of the Obama presidency, providing jobs and a cleaner source of energy."
Here the author is merely assuming that since Obama was president during the increase in natural gas production, Obama's environmental policies were causally responsible for that increase. But since it is possible that something else is responsible for this increase, we cannot just assume that Obama is.
You can read the entire article at http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/schlossberg-young-voters-obama/index.html
Example #1:
In a widely-read article on cnn.com, the author, who argues that young people should vote for Obama, writes,
"Obama has acted aggressively on the issue most important to my generation: climate change. Our generation believes in healing the Earth. Between 2010 and 2011, the United States cut its foreign oil imports by 10%, or 1 million barrels a day. Domestic natural gas production has increased during each year of the Obama presidency, providing jobs and a cleaner source of energy."
Here the author is merely assuming that since Obama was president during the increase in natural gas production, Obama's environmental policies were causally responsible for that increase. But since it is possible that something else is responsible for this increase, we cannot just assume that Obama is.
You can read the entire article at http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/schlossberg-young-voters-obama/index.html
Example #2:
On Obama's official website, he lists ten things he thinks every American must know about Mitt Romney. One of them reads:
“Before Romney’s time as governor, Massachusetts ranked 36th out of 50 in job creation, but over the course of his tenure the state ranked a dismal 47th out of 50—even as the national economy was growing. The Bay State only beat Michigan, Ohio, and Louisiana—which was still recovering from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”
The suggestion is that Romney and his political policies are directly to blame for these statistics. However, there are many factors to consider when figuring out why a state is not creating new jobs and we would need more evidence to think the culprit in this case was Romney and his governing policies.
See http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/debate-prep-ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-gov.-romneys-massachusetts-re?source=primary-nav
Example #3:
During this political commercial Romney seems to blame Obama for the poverty of America. He says, “ More Americans are living in poverty than when Obama took office.” Although many are in debt and are losing a lot of money these days, it does not mean that it was Obama who caused it.