 Boudry coined the term "fallacy fork".For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation scheme, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork) or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork).To argue, for example, that one became nauseated after eating a mushroom because the mushroom was poisonous could be an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy unless one were actually arguing inductively and probabilistically that it is likely that the mushroom caused the illness since some mushrooms are poisonous, it is possible to misidentify a mushroom as edible, one doesn't usually feel nauseated, etc.