Is this a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? 'The most intense lightning storm ever recorded was followed by many numerous Bushfires; the lightning must have caused them.'
Thanks for any answers, im really struggling with this.
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
For me, this sounds like a borderline fallacy. If the speaker had said "presumably" or "likely" instead of "must," then there probably would be no fallacy at all.
However, the speaker is linking two phenomena together based on coincidental evidence. It turns out there is a fallacy called a questionable-cause logical fallacy.
Bear in mind that many fallacies have multiple names and often overlap with other fallacies. It's therefore possible that there's a better name for this particular fallacy.