Composition The composition fallacy occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that a characteristic of some or all the individuals

in a group is also a characteristic of the group itself, the group composed of those members. It is the converse of the division fallacy. Example:
Each human cell is very lightweight, so a human being composed of cells is also very lightweight.

Subjectivist The subjectivist fallacy occurs when it is mistakenly supposed that a good reason to reject a claim is that truth on the matter is relative to the person or group. Example:
Justine has just given Jake her reasons for believing that the Devil is an imaginary evil person. Jake, not wanting to accept her conclusion, responds with, Thats perhaps true for you, but its not true for me.

Post Hoc proctor hoc Suppose we notice that an event of kind A is followed in time by an event of kind B, and then hastily leap to the conclusion that A caused B. If so, we commit the post hoc fallacy. Correlations are often good evidence of causal connection, so the fallacy occurs only when the leap to the causal conclusion is done hastily. The Latin term for the fallacy is post hoc, ergo propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this). It is a kind of false cause fallacy. Example:
I ate in that Ethiopian restaurant three days ago and now Ive just gotten food poisoning. The only other time Ive eaten in an Ethiopian restaurant I also got food poisoning, but that time I got sick a week later. My eating in those kinds of restaurants is causing my food poisoning.

Your background knowledge should tell you this is unlikely because the effects of food poisoning are felt soon after the food is eaten. Before believing your illness was caused by eating in an Ethiopian restaurant, youd need to rule out other possibilities, such as your illness being caused by what you ate a few hours before the onset of the illness The black-or-white fallacy is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly limits you to only two choices. Example:
Well, its time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?

A proper challenge to this fallacy could be to say, I do want to prevent the destruction of our environment, but I dont want to give $10 to your fund. You are placing me between a rock and a hard place. The key to diagnosing the black-or-white fallacy is to determine whether the limited menu is fair or unfair. Simply saying, Will you contribute $10 or wont you? is not unfair.