Which type of reasoning error might occur when concluding future results based on unrelated past events?

The type of reasoning error that occurs when concluding future results based on unrelated past events is known as a Post Hoc fallacy. This fallacy, formally termed "post hoc ergo propter hoc," is based on the assumption that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. However, in this case, if the past events are unrelated to the outcome being analyzed, drawing conclusions about future results based solely on those past events lacks a valid causal relationship.

In this context, it’s essential to recognize that simply experiencing two events in succession does not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. For instance, if someone were to claim that because a town experienced an increase in ice cream sales one summer and later had an increase in drowning incidents, the ice cream was to blame, they would be making a post hoc reasoning error. There is no actual link between the unrelated events, and such conclusions are misleading.

Overall, understanding the Post Hoc fallacy helps to identify and avoid flawed reasoning that inaccurately attributes causation based purely on sequences of occurrence rather than on proven connections between events.