What concept is displayed when arguing that a decision to invest in a system should be questioned based on past failures?

The concept displayed in this context is an Inconsequent Argument, which refers to drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises or evidence provided. When the argument contends that a decision should be questioned based on past failures, it implies that because there were past failures, the current decision is also likely flawed. This reasoning does not address the current merits or context of the decision, thus it fails to make a logical connection between the past and the present.

Inconsequent Arguments often highlight a fallacy in reasoning by assuming that just because something failed before, it will fail again without providing relevant evidence or analysis of the current circumstances. This can mislead by focusing on irrelevant aspects rather than the specifics of the current situation and its potential for success or failure.

Other concepts like Ad Hominem, Diversion, and Appeal to Ignorance have distinct meanings unrelated to questioning a decision based on its historical context. Ad Hominem attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, Diversion sidesteps the topic by introducing an irrelevant point, and Appeal to Ignorance suggests something must be true simply because it hasn't been proven false. None of these concepts accurately represent the scenario of questioning a decision based on past failures.