Which fallacy involves comparing two unrelated things to draw a misleading conclusion?

The fallacy that involves drawing a misleading conclusion by comparing two unrelated things is known as a Faulty Analogy. This fallacy occurs when an argument is made based on an incorrect or tenuous relationship between two things that are not sufficiently similar, leading to a flawed conclusion.

For example, if someone argues that because a car runs on gasoline and a human runs on food, a human should be able to run on gasoline as well, this comparison is misleading and illustrates a faulty analogy. The key feature of this fallacy is the assumption that because two things share certain aspects, they must be similar in all respects, which is often not the case.

In contrast, other fallacies mentioned do not specifically involve the comparison of unrelated items. A Non Sequitur presents a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises. A Hasty Generalization involves making a sweeping conclusion based on insufficient evidence, while Post Hoc refers to assuming a causal relationship based solely on the order of events, which does not involve comparison like a faulty analogy does. Thus, the defining characteristic of a Faulty Analogy makes it the correct response to the question posed.