Which fallacy is committed in the following statement:
“Tarun cannot be guilty of murder since there is no way Tarun could kill someone.”

The correct option is Begging the Question.

Step-by-step Explanation:

1. Understanding the Fallacy:
Begging the Question (also known as petitio principii or circular reasoning) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the very point that you are trying to prove.

2. Analyzing the Statement:
The given statement is: “Tarun cannot be guilty of murder since there is no way Tarun could kill someone.”
Let us break this argument down into its premise and conclusion:
- Premise: There is no way Tarun could kill someone.
- Conclusion: Tarun cannot be guilty of murder.
Here, "being guilty of murder" and "killing someone" are conceptually equivalent in the context of this argument. The premise (Tarun cannot kill anyone) simply restates the conclusion (Tarun cannot commit murder) in different words without offering any independent evidence or logical proof to support it. The argument is circular because the truth of the premise relies entirely on the truth of the conclusion it is trying to establish.

3. Why other options are incorrect:
- Hasty Generalization: This fallacy occurs when a claim is made based on an insufficient or unrepresentative sample size. There is no generalization from samples here.
- Slippery Slope: This fallacy claims that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of negative events. No chain reaction of events is described here.
- Appeal to Inappropriate Authority: This fallacy occurs when an argument relies on the opinion of an authority figure who is not an expert in the relevant field. No authority is cited in the statement.

Therefore, because the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, it commits the fallacy of Begging the Question.