Single Culprit Fallacy

Consider the following argument.

Proposition 1 is clearly true. For a crime to be committed someone must commit it, and we call that person a criminal. Proposition 2 is also true. |According to the Austin Police Department, tens of thousands of crimes (of one sort or another) occur in the city every year. Moreover, the premises are related to one another such that we could deduce some conclusion from them, but the Inference A is clearly a non sequitur: the premises give us no reason to believe Proposition 3.