Detective: Bill has been accused of committing the burglary at the warehouse last night. ███ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ █████████
The detective concludes that Bill did not commit the warehouse burglary last night. The basis for this conclusion is that no one saw Bill near the scene of the crime.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking an unsupported conclusion for a false one. In this case, while we don’t have enough evidence to conclude that Bill was guilty, we can’t jump from that to definitively conclude that he was innocent.
For example, perhaps he is guilty, but no one saw him because he stealthily evaded detection after committing the crime.
The reasoning in the detective's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
treats evidence that ██ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ████████
merely attacks the █████████ ██ ██████ ████████
fails to provide ███████████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ███ ████████
treats a lack ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ ████
fails to establish ███ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████