In this scenario, the argument presented by the individual questioning the breaking of curfew is an example of a line-drawing fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone questions the validity of a distinction by pointing out small differences in comparison to a larger, more significant difference.
In the given situation, the person is trying to argue that standing on the curb is essentially the same as being on the porch or just slightly off it, implying that there is no real difference between these locations regarding curfew violations. However, the authority enforcing the curfew has drawn a line at the curb, indicating that crossing that point constitutes a violation.
By using the line-drawing fallacy, the individual is attempting to undermine the enforcement of the curfew by suggesting that the distinction made at the curb is arbitrary and insignificant. In reality, the authorities have set a clear boundary at the curb, and crossing it does indeed constitute breaking the curfew rule, regardless of the minor differences highlighted by the individual.
