Questions: In the following argument, identify the premise and conclusion, explain why the argument is deceptive, and, if possible, identify the type of fallacy it represents. I ate oysters for dinner and later that night I had a nightmare. Oysters caused my nightmare.

In the given argument, we need to identify the premise and conclusion, explain why the argument is deceptive, and identify the type of fallacy it represents.

• Premise: I ate oysters for dinner.
• Conclusion: Oysters caused my nightmare.

The argument is deceptive because it assumes a causal relationship between two events based solely on their sequence in time. Just because the nightmare occurred after eating oysters does not necessarily mean that the oysters caused the nightmare. This is a classic example of confusing correlation with causation.

The fallacy represented in this argument is known as the "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" fallacy, which is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." This fallacy occurs when it is assumed that because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second. In reality, there could be other factors that caused the nightmare, such as stress, anxiety, or other unrelated dietary factors.