Originally Posted by the.yangist
This isn't a fallacy. The conclusion follows from the premise and the premise is true independent of the argument provided. It's just not an interesting argument.
I agree with you, but Martin did say that the fallacy does not apply formally and your previous issue -- i.e. the last post that dealt with the confusion between porvability and entailment -- doesn't apply if the fallacy isn't a formal fallacy. However, it is a little confusing why the formal idea of soundness gets employed by Martin while claiming that the fallacy isn't formal -- i.e. soundness is a formal language concept that doesn't occur in natural language arguments (i.e. non-formal ones).