Fallacies in the Wild

For this exercise on identifying logical fallacies out in the wild, I searched my way through Twitter and eventually crossed paths with a displeased supporter of Hillary Clinton. This supporter, Erika Brock, tweeted out her displeasure in, “Please now try to tell me that Hillary lost this election because of her emails and not that she is a woman.” She is intentionally presenting a slight feel of sarcasm as she clearly sees the email reasoning as a complete joke. Little does she know, or at least realize, that her own reasoning is quite fallacious, as it depicts a sense of post hoc. Miss Brock argued that the reason Clinton lost was due to the fact that she was a woman. In terms of post hoc, this means that Hillary was originally a woman, then ran for president of the United States and lost, completely due to the fact of claim A, that she was a woman. Quite frankly, this is ridiculous; moreover, the gender of candidate Clinton can in no way be seen as the proximate cause for her failure in the election, more than likely it was due to the fact that people firmly disagreed with her ideals and past with similar governmental positions. As a result, this can clearly be seen as a post hoc fallacy.