This fallacy occurs when a non-cause is mistaken for a cause (Non Causa Pro Causa), and the assertion that it does not follow, that is, the non sequitur, which asserts, albeit without proof, that C inevitably causes D, and D inevitably causes E. (Pope, 2010)
Example: If a businessperson reduces the cost of an item for one customer, he might have to reduce the cost for all other customers, and this would inevitably lead to him losing profits, consequently leading to bankruptcy.
Equivocation or changing meanings
This describes the use of a word in a distinct and different way than used by the author in the initial premise, or changing definitions midway through an argument or discussion. This fallacy is committed when the same phrase or word is applied in distinguished senses within one argumentative line.
Example: Plato states that perfection is the end of something (Wheeleer, 2012). He observes that life ends by death, therefore, to him death is the perfection of life. As far as Plato is concerned, “end” denotes “goal.” However, in the second usage of the word by the author, the word denotes “termination.” As such, it is evident that the author twists Plato's meaning of this word to draw a distinguished conclusion.