Bo Bennett describes pseudo-logical fallacies as those which fail his test of being true fallacies. His test has three criteria:
- It must be an error in reasoning, not a factual error.
- It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or the interpretation of the argument.
- It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.
Here is a description of the situation that may be a fallacy:
"If you buy XXX, which is expensive, then you would also buy YYY, because if you spent so much on XXX then you would spend as much on YYY."
This may be more of a factual error than an error in reasoning itself. Also it may not be commonly used in an argument nor deceptive. On the surface this does not appear to be fallacious.
That doesn't mean people haven't named something like this as a fallacy. In his page on what he considers pseudo-logical fallacies Bennett lists a couple named pseudo-fallacies that might fit this description:
Essentializing Fallacy: Suggesting that something is what it is and it will always be that way when in fact, that is not the case. This is simply factually incorrect.
Faulty Sign: Incorrectly assumes that one event or phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of another event or phenomenon. This is very similar to many of the fallacies related to causality. This name is rarely used.
Bo Bennett, "Pseudo-Logical Fallacies" Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/6/Pseudo-Logical-Fallacies