What kind of reasoning results in a conclusion that is not logically connected to its premise?

Reasoning that results in a conclusion not logically connected to its premise is called fallacious reasoning. There are many types of fallacies, but they all share the common characteristic of invalidating the argument, making the conclusion unreliable even if the premises are true.

Here are some common examples of fallacious reasoning:

* Ad hominem: Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

* Appeal to authority: Assuming something is true because an authority figure said it.

* Appeal to emotion: Using emotional manipulation to persuade the audience instead of logic.

* Bandwagon effect: Assuming something is true because many people believe it.

* False dilemma: Presenting only two options when there are actually more.

* Hasty generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on a small or unrepresentative sample.

* Red herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to distract from the main argument.

* Slippery slope: Assuming that one event will inevitably lead to another, more extreme event.

* Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.

In summary, fallacious reasoning is a form of faulty logic that leads to conclusions that are not supported by the premises. It's important to be aware of these fallacies so you can avoid making them yourself and identify them in the arguments of others.