Which logical fallacy is demonstrated when attendance at football games is used to justify New Orleans' acceptance into the league?

The situation presented illustrates a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises provided. Specifically, using attendance at football games to justify New Orleans' acceptance into the league exemplifies a non sequitur fallacy. This means that there is a disconnect between the premise and the conclusion—the attendance at games does not inherently support or justify the decision for inclusion in the league. The reasoning fails because it does not establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

To elaborate, a non sequitur is characterized by a lack of logical connection. The attendance figures might indeed reflect popularity or interest, but they don't alone provide a valid argument for New Orleans' acceptance into the league. Other factors would need to be considered to create a robust justification.

In contrast, hasty generalization typically involves making a conclusion based on insufficient evidence, a faulty analogy compares two things that aren't sufficiently alike in relevant respects, and concurrency refers to simultaneous occurrences without necessarily implying a causal relationship. None of these categories directly apply to the reasoning used in this instance.