"Whoever thrusts a knife into another person should be arrested. Surgeons thrust a knife into another person when operating. Therefore surgeons should be arrested." Which fallacy is committed in the argument?

A general rule is applied to a special case it was never meant to cover, the fallacy of accident.

The rule that knife-thrusting deserves arrest is framed for harmful attacks.

A surgeon's incision is an accidental circumstance that falls outside its intent.

The argument ignores this exception and applies the rule rigidly.

Forcing a broad generalisation onto an atypical instance yields the absurd conclusion.

This misuse of dicto simpliciter is the fallacy of accident.