Which logical fallacy is found in the reasoning that if a company invests in road surfaces, it must be equally invested in gasoline?

The reasoning presented in the question illustrates a non sequitur fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a conclusion does not logically follow from the premises or arguments preceding it. In this case, the assertion that a company investing in road surfaces must also be equally invested in gasoline fails to establish a logical connection between the two investments. The investment in road surfaces does not inherently justify or require a corresponding investment in gasoline, as they pertain to different aspects of infrastructure and business operations.

A non sequitur disrupts logical coherence, leading to conclusions that may seem related but are actually unfounded and invalid. Understanding this fallacy aids in recognizing gaps in reasoning and improves critical thinking skills by encouraging the evaluation of the relationships between ideas and arguments.