What reasoning flaw is evident when someone's misfortune is linked directly to a previous event without evidence?

The reasoning flaw evident when someone’s misfortune is linked directly to a previous event without solid evidence is known as post hoc reasoning. This flaw occurs when an individual assumes a cause-and-effect relationship merely based on the sequence of events, inferring that because one event followed another, the first event must have caused the second.

For example, if a person claims that because they wore a particular shirt on the day they experienced a bad event, that shirt must have been the cause of their misfortune, they are employing post hoc reasoning. This reasoning disregards other potential causes and does not rely on substantial evidence to support the claim.

Recognizing this flaw is critical in evaluating arguments logically, as it emphasizes the importance of seeking validated relationships between events rather than accepting correlations at face value.