When someone argues that "Because I had a cold, this person must have given it to me by coughing," which logical error are they making?

The argument presented involves a faulty causal inference that links the speaker's cold directly to another person's action—specifically, that the cold was contracted because the person coughed. This reasoning lacks adequate justification or evidence to support the conclusion that the person's cough was the direct cause of the cold. It fails to consider other potential sources of the cold or to establish a clear causal connection.

In this case, the flaw is not so much about drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence (which would be hasty generalization) or making inappropriate comparisons (faulty analogy), but rather about an unsubstantiated assumption regarding causality. The reasoning overlooks the complexities of how illnesses spread, thus failing to use any recognized logical technique in a systematic way. Instead, it implies a direct relationship without substantiation, illustrating a more general misapplication of logic in argumentation.

By correctly identifying this as a lack of legitimate argumentative technique, it highlights the necessity of grounding conclusions on clear evidence rather than assuming direct causality from anecdotal instances.