Colin Powell

Shawn writes:

I would add that although Powell was fully vaccinated, he had a lot of the preexisting conditions that are known to make the virus more dangerous. He was 84, and he had cancer and Parkinson’s disease; a dangerous combination, say health experts. See as reference www.washingtonpost.com/he. . .

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Shawn]

All good points. But in an example like the one you presented, they are not necessary. Focus on the major problem(s) before allowing yourself to be sidetracked with the details... and possibly addressing an argument not being made. For example, if the one making this argument thinks a vaccine doesn't work because someone died of the disease the vaccine provides protection against, discussing pre-existing conditions is pointless because they appear to be under the impression that the vaccine must be 100% effective to work.

Shawn writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Yes, that is a valid point ---

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Out of curiosity, what makes this a non sequitur rather than jumping to conclusions?

Intuitively you could say 'jumping to conclusions is a valid argument that isn't fully developed yet', while a non sequitur is just a point-blank invalid argument. But non sequiturs do not follow because there is a disconnect between premise and conclusion - in other words, it is not a 'fully developed' argument.

So what else do you think separates them?

EDIT: 

Little or no evidence is provided or reviewed.
Conclusion is made.

This makes more sense...but surely you could still say the same for non sequitur?

Maybe 'non sequitur' is reserved purely for conclusions that are irrelevant to the premises, while JTC is more specific and to do with decision-making (I notice all the examples are about judgements on action).

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

jumping to conclusions is one of those borderline fallacies that is included because of wide acceptance as a fallacy, but personally, I think it is more of an example poor reasoning that can take place outside of an argument. A non sequitur is certainly a fallacy and perhaps a bit more formal. There is cross over, but jumping to conclusions seems to require a rational (not necessarily reasonable) unstated premise and/or the plausibility of the existence of evidence that would justify the conclusion. Consider:

1. I have 3 pennies.
2. A piece of gum cost 3 pennies.
C. Therefore, Vaccines don't work.

The conclusion is irrational and would not fit jumping to conclusions but would fit non sequitur . So jumping to conclusions would be a subset.

As for the argument in the OP, I can't imagine any evidence that would justify the conclusion. The conclusion just doesn't follow.