Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is an empirical research method that has gained some popularity in the social sciences. At the same time, the literature has long been convinced that QCA is prone to committing causal fallacies when confronted with non-causal data. More specifically, beyond a certain case-to-factor ratio, the method is believed to fail in recognizing real data. To reduce that risk, some authors have proposed benchmark tables that put a limit on the number of exogenous factors given a certain number of cases. Many applied researchers looking for methodological guidance have since adhered to these tables. We argue that fears of inferential breakdown in QCA due to an "unfavorable" case-to-factor ratio are without foundation. What is more, we demonstrate that these benchmarks induce more fallacious inferences than they prevent. For valid causal inference, researchers are better off relying on the current state of knowledge in their respective fields.