Description: Treating an explanation of a fact as if it were a justification of the fact, a valid reason for the fact, or evidence for the fact.
Person 1 asks that claim X be justified.
Person 2 explains claim X in detail.
Therefore, claim X is justified / true.
Mrs. Crabtree: Your child, Mrs. Martin, is rude to me and shows me no respect.
Mrs. Martin: That’s because he thinks you are a “poo-poo faced bag lady who hates little kids”.
Mrs. Crabtree: That is no excuse for his behavior!
Mrs. Martin: No, it’s just a fact.
Explanation: In this case, Mrs. Crabtree committed the fallacy by incorrectly thinking Mrs. Martin’s fact was meant to be a justification when it was not.
Virgil: How do you justify the claim that Bigfoot is the missing link between the great apes and humans?
Marshall: Well, a "missing link" is the intermediary species between the two in the evolutionary process.
Explanation: Marshall simply explained what a missing link is; he did not give a valid reason for why he believes that Bigfoot is the missing link.
Exception: If it is clear to both parties that no justification attempt is being made, but rather just stating a fact, then this fallacy is not being committed.
Tip: If you are unsure if someone is trying to make an excuse or simply stating a fact, ask them. Don’t assume.
This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.