Which logical fallacy occurs when a conclusion does not logically follow from the previous statements?

The non sequitur fallacy specifically refers to a situation where a conclusion does not logically follow from the previous statements or premises. In rhetorical and logical discussions, a non sequitur highlights a disconnection between the argument's premises and its conclusion, making it invalid. For instance, if someone argues that because it is raining outside, a specific football team will win a game, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise about the weather. This fallacy underscores the importance of maintaining a clear logical connection between statements in reasoning and argumentation.

The other choices involve different types of logical errors: composition deals with assuming that what is true of the parts is true of the whole; faulty analogy draws misleading comparisons; and division assumes that what is true of the whole must also be true of its parts. Each of these errors highlights distinct ways in which reasoning can go astray, but they do not encapsulate the disconnect emphasized in non sequitur arguments.