"More laws have been added on the books in past five years than ever before, yet the number of crimes committed during the same period has significantly increased. Therefore, to bring the crime rate down, must eliminate the laws". Which fallacy is committed in the above statement?

The correct answer is False cause.

The argument in the question goes like this: more laws have been added in the past five years than ever before, and during that same period, the number of crimes has significantly increased. From this, the conclusion is drawn that the laws themselves are causing the increase in crime, and therefore, eliminating the laws will bring the crime rate down.

This is a textbook example of the False Cause fallacy (also known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning "after this, therefore because of this"). This fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly assumes that because two events happened around the same time — or one followed the other — one must have caused the other.

Let's break down the logical error step by step:

Step 1 — Identify the two observed facts:
Fact A: The number of laws increased significantly over five years.
Fact B: The number of crimes also increased over the same five years.

Step 2 — Identify the conclusion drawn:
The argument concludes that A caused B — that is, the addition of more laws directly caused the rise in crime.

Step 3 — Spot the error:
Just because two things occurred together (or one after the other) does not mean one caused the other. This is the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. The rise in crime could be due to entirely unrelated factors — such as economic downturns, population growth, reduced law enforcement resources, or social instability — none of which are considered in the argument.

Step 4 — Why the other options are incorrect:
• Red Herring: This fallacy involves introducing an irrelevant topic to distract from the real issue. The argument here stays on topic (crime and laws), so it is not a red herring.
• Straw Man: This fallacy misrepresents someone else's argument to make it easier to attack. No one else's position is being distorted here.
• Slippery Slope: This fallacy claims that one event will inevitably lead to a chain of extreme consequences. The argument does not predict a chain of future events; it draws a wrong causal conclusion from past data.

Step 5 — Conclusion:
The argument makes an unjustified leap — it assumes that because laws and crime both increased together, the laws must be the cause of crime. This is precisely the False Cause fallacy: treating a mere coincidence or correlation as if it were a direct causal relationship, without any logical or empirical evidence to support the causal link.