What reasoning flaw is demonstrated by suggesting that inviting Elizabeth will guarantee a win in Trivial Pursuit because of her brother Edgar's knowledge?

The reasoning flaw illustrated by the suggestion that inviting Elizabeth will guarantee a win in Trivial Pursuit due to her brother Edgar's knowledge is based on a faulty analogy. This flaw occurs when a comparison is made between two things that are not sufficiently alike in relevant respects. In this case, the argument assumes that Elizabeth’s capability to win is directly related to Edgar’s knowledge.

However, while it might be true that Edgar possesses a wide breadth of trivia knowledge, it does not logically follow that his expertise will translate to Elizabeth's performance in the game. Each player’s knowledge and skills can be independent of each other, meaning that one person's strengths do not equate to the performance of another, especially in a trivia game where individual recall and response are crucial.

By implying that Elizabeth will share in Edgar's abilities simply because they are siblings, the reasoning overlooks individual differences and fails to establish a valid connection between the two. Thus, this exemplifies the faulty analogy fallacy.