Type 2 · Operator Overextension
Jumping Too Far
You made a reasoning move that goes beyond what’s allowed. Just because two things are connected doesn’t mean you can leap from one to the other without more proof.
The move, up close
“I wore the red socks and we won — the socks did it.”
The CAUSE operator is applied to a bare sequence — B followed A, so A must have caused B.
Causes really do precede their effects; the order looks right.
CAUSE needs more than order to be licensed — a mechanism, a control, a reason the two are linked.
What it sounds like
You’ve heard this one.
“I got sick after eating there, so the food caused it.”
“This could happen, therefore it will happen.”
“They changed the algorithm, now the platform is dying.”
“If we legalize marijuana, we’ll have rampant heroin addiction.”
“Raise taxes once, and soon we’ll be a communist state.”
Classic fallacies
Names you already know.
The tag on each names the move in AOML coordinates — source → target: what got swapped in for what.
Confused sequence with causation.
Treated a possible chain as inevitable.
Ignored the common cause behind both.
Past spending treated as a reason to continue.
The test
What extra step did they assume without proof? Sequence → causation needs a mechanism. Could → will needs a probability. Past investment → future obligation: judge the next step on its own.
How to respond
Name the move, not the fallacy.
“Correlation doesn’t equal causation!”
“Those are correlated. What’s the mechanism that connects them?”
“Slippery slope fallacy!”
“Step 1 could lead to step 2 — what evidence makes step 3 inevitable?”
“That’s a sunk cost!”
“That’s money already spent. Is the next investment worth it on its own?”
The key insight. Just because you can imagine the next step doesn’t mean it’s inevitable. The mistake is treating speculation as conclusion.
Watch the subtler variants that mistake a claim’s degree or timing for the claim itself: “very likely” → “certain” (appeal to probability), “newer” → “better” (appeal to novelty).