The Missing Steps Fallacy
When X is assumed to be a result of Y even though X is not the logical next step of Y. A kind of reverse of the Slippery Slope Fallacy (where leaps of logic are used to argue Y will inevitably result in X). I don't know if there's already a term for this, but it's something I notice a lot in discourse.<p>To give an example: "mass shootings are a result of toxic masculinity," where there are several <i>missing steps</i> between "suffering from toxic masculinity" and "becoming a school shooter." After all, if it is assumed that toxic masculity (Y) is a widespread problem affecting man different men (and the people usually making these arguments do assume that), yet the vast majority of men, even those who do show violent tendencies, don't become school shooters (X), then either there are a lot of intermediate steps between X and Y or X isn't a result of Y at all. Similiar arguments like "school shootings are a result of mental illness/the media/etc." run into the same problem.
