This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show
equivalence, especially in
order of magnitude,
when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.
[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny
because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set containing c and d, and B is the set containing d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal.