The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:
- A occurs in correlation with B.
- Therefore, A causes B.
And in plain language, my landlady is nuts.
A few months after moving in, she told me that she had "cleaned up the front porch". I smiled and nodded (generally the best way to avoid a conversation) and began to climb my steps. I spend little to no time on the front porch, nor does my child.
"I cleaned up all the gum that was there," she said to my retreating back. That's when I should have waved and kept climbing. I had less experience at that point, though, and I politely summoned a look of neighborly concern.
"Gum?"
"Yes. You and your daughter can't throw gum on the porch."
Now, we rarely chew gum. But when we do, we never sit on the front porch and gleefully toss the rubbery remnants thither and yon just to decorate.
To her: "I'm sorry you had to clean up gum, but I can assure you that neither I or my daughter put any gum on the front porch. We don't usually chew it; we don't usually sit on the porch, and we would certainly never discard gum there if we did either of those things."
"Well, I never found gum there before you moved in."
Of course. Then clearly it follows that we must be Pastafarians.
