Yolanda makes a distinction between joyriding and computer crimes. Arjun counters this distinction by claiming that computer crimes also cause physical harm. He doesn’t ignore her distinction.

Arjun denies Yolanda’s conclusion, but he does provide evidence: the example of unauthorized use of hospital medical records. The flaw lies in the relationship between this evidence and his conclusion.

Arjun’s premise states that unauthorized use of hospital medical records could damage certain data systems, while his conclusion states that computer crimes do cause physical harm. So his conclusion depends on the actuality of something that he’s only shown to be a possibility.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. Arjun doesn’t do this; he just gives an example to support his conclusion.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of internal contradiction. Arjun’s evidence may not support his conclusion well, but it is consistent with his conclusion.