What does the argument "Someone has said that if students are not allowed to buy beer, they will drive elsewhere" illustrate?

The argument "Someone has said that if students are not allowed to buy beer, they will drive elsewhere" illustrates an inconsequent argument, which is characterized by a conclusion that does not logically follow from its premises. In this case, the assertion that students will drive elsewhere if they cannot buy beer does not provide a sound basis for reasoning about the prohibition of beer sales. The reasoning here fails to connect effectively to the original claim, thereby rendering it inconsequential to the discussion at hand regarding the implications of restricting beer sales. This lack of relevance and logical connection is the hallmark of an inconsequent argument.

In contrast, the other types of arguments have distinct characteristics that do not apply here. An ad hominem attack would focus on discrediting the individual making the claim rather than addressing the argument itself, while a straw man argument would misrepresent someone's argument to make it easier to attack. Begging the question involves assuming the truth of what one is trying to prove, without providing evidence or reasoning. Each of these concepts highlights different logical fallacies, whereas this particular argument's failure to connect premises to a valid conclusion firmly places it in the realm of inconsequential reasoning.