The advocate concludes that some models of cars are more likely to be stolen than others. Why? Because the model of car that was stolen most often one year ago is the same as that stolen most often two years ago.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing percentages and amounts. The advocate draws an implied conclusion about how likely a certain kind of car is to be stolen (i.e. the percentage of said cars that are stolen). But his only support is the total number of thefts of that car model.

Without knowing how common this car model is, we have no way of knowing how likely it is to be stolen. What if this is simply the most popular model of car? In that case, even if it was stolen at the same rate as other models, the total number of stolen cars of this model would be higher.