This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the argument’s conclusion merely restates one of its premises. The legislator doesn’t make this mistake. His premises don’t support his conclusion well, but they are distinct from his conclusion.

The legislator doesn’t assume that what’s true of the iron industry is true of industry in general. Instead, he assumes that the sale of FerroMetal will lead to a long chain of consequences within the iron industry.

The legislator argues that the sale should be prohibited, but not on the grounds that prohibiting the sale is widely accepted. Instead, he argues that the sale should be prohibited because it will lead to a chain of negative consequences for iron companies and manufacturers.

The legislator assumes that the sale of FerroMetal will inevitably lead to a chain of possible consequences. He never provides any evidence that it will actually cause these consequences, nor does he consider other potential outcomes.

The legislator argues that the sale of FerroMetal would cause multiple other events, but there’s no reason to believe that those events would have to precede the sale of FerroMetal.