The Concession Stand Fallacy Example

Oct 13, 2025 by miodeya.com 67 views

Introduction

In the world of logic and critical thinking, there are various types of fallacies that can lead to incorrect conclusions. One such fallacy is the Concession Stand Fallacy, also known as the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. This fallacy occurs when we assume that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second event. In this article, we will explore the Concession Stand Fallacy through a real-life example and examine its implications.

The Concession Stand Fallacy Example

Let's consider the following scenario:

"Every time I've gone to the concession stand for a beer, our basketball team has gone on a scoring streak. There are two minutes to go, and the team is trailing by six. I guess it's about time for a beer."

At first glance, this statement may seem like a harmless observation. However, upon closer inspection, we can see that it is a classic example of the Concession Stand Fallacy. The speaker is assuming that because they have gone to the concession stand for a beer, the team has gone on a scoring streak. This is a clear case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, where the speaker is mistakenly assuming that the beer is the cause of the team's success.

The Problem with the Concession Stand Fallacy

The Concession Stand Fallacy is a problem because it leads to incorrect conclusions and can have serious consequences. In the context of the basketball game, the speaker's assumption that the beer is the cause of the team's success may lead them to believe that they can influence the outcome of the game by going to the concession stand. This is, of course, not the case.

Confirmation Bias and the Concession Stand Fallacy

The Concession Stand Fallacy is also closely related to confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them. In this case, the speaker is selectively focusing on the times when they have gone to the concession stand and the team has gone on a scoring streak, while ignoring the many times when they have gone to the concession stand and the team has not gone on a scoring streak.

The Dangers of the Concession Stand Fallacy

The Concession Stand Fallacy can have serious consequences in various areas of life, including:

Sports: As we saw in the example above, the Concession Stand Fallacy can lead to incorrect conclusions about the causes of a team's success or failure.
Business: In business, the Concession Stand Fallacy can lead to incorrect decisions about the causes of a company's success or failure.
Personal relationships: In personal relationships, the Concession Stand Fallacy can lead to incorrect conclusions about the causes of a person's behavior or success.

How to Avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy

To avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy, we need to be aware of our own biases and assumptions. Here are some tips to help you avoid this fallacy:

Seek out diverse perspectives: Seek out information from multiple sources and perspectives to get a more complete understanding of a situation.
Look for alternative explanations: Consider alternative explanations for a phenomenon, rather than assuming that one event must have caused another.
Avoid selective focus: Avoid selectively focusing on information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Concession Stand Fallacy is a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where we assume that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second event. This fallacy can have serious consequences in various areas of life, including sports, business, and personal relationships. By being aware of our own biases and assumptions, we can avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy and make more informed decisions.

References

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.
The Concession Stand Fallacy: A Q&A Guide =====================================================

Introduction

In our previous article, we explored the Concession Stand Fallacy, a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This fallacy occurs when we assume that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second event. In this article, we will answer some frequently asked questions about the Concession Stand Fallacy and provide additional insights into this important topic.

Q: What is the Concession Stand Fallacy?

A: The Concession Stand Fallacy is a type of fallacy that occurs when we assume that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second event. This fallacy is also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this."

Q: What is an example of the Concession Stand Fallacy?

A: A classic example of the Concession Stand Fallacy is the following statement: "Every time I've gone to the concession stand for a beer, our basketball team has gone on a scoring streak. There are two minutes to go, and the team is trailing by six. I guess it's about time for a beer." In this example, the speaker is assuming that because they have gone to the concession stand for a beer, the team has gone on a scoring streak.

Q: Why is the Concession Stand Fallacy a problem?

A: The Concession Stand Fallacy is a problem because it leads to incorrect conclusions and can have serious consequences. In the context of the basketball game, the speaker's assumption that the beer is the cause of the team's success may lead them to believe that they can influence the outcome of the game by going to the concession stand. This is, of course, not the case.

Q: How can I avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy?

A: To avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy, you need to be aware of your own biases and assumptions. Here are some tips to help you avoid this fallacy:

Seek out diverse perspectives: Seek out information from multiple sources and perspectives to get a more complete understanding of a situation.
Look for alternative explanations: Consider alternative explanations for a phenomenon, rather than assuming that one event must have caused another.
Avoid selective focus: Avoid selectively focusing on information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them.

Q: What are some real-life examples of the Concession Stand Fallacy?

A: The Concession Stand Fallacy can occur in various areas of life, including:

Sports: As we saw in the example above, the Concession Stand Fallacy can lead to incorrect conclusions about the causes of a team's success or failure.
Business: In business, the Concession Stand Fallacy can lead to incorrect decisions about the causes of a company's success or failure.
Personal relationships: In personal relationships, the Concession Stand Fallacy can lead to incorrect conclusions about the causes of a person's behavior or success.

Q: Can the Concession Stand Fallacy be avoided in all situations?

A: While it is possible to avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy in many situations, it is not always possible to avoid it entirely. However, by being aware of your own biases and assumptions, you can reduce the likelihood of falling victim to this fallacy.

Q: What are some common mistakes that people make when trying to avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy?

A: Some common mistakes that people make when trying to avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy include:

Selective focus: Focusing only on information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and ignoring information that contradicts them.
Confirmation bias: Seeking out information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and ignoring information that contradicts them.
Lack of critical thinking: Failing to consider alternative explanations for a phenomenon and assuming that one event must have caused another.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Concession Stand Fallacy is a common type of fallacy that can lead to incorrect conclusions and have serious consequences. By being aware of your own biases and assumptions, you can avoid this fallacy and make more informed decisions. Remember to seek out diverse perspectives, look for alternative explanations, and avoid selective focus to avoid the Concession Stand Fallacy.

References

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.