Your attempt to use the abstract by itself as if it had evidentiary value is an appeal to authority fallacy.
Since you don't appear to have enough common sense to do so yourself, I'll direct your attention to the post immediately preceding the one in which you demanded that I point out the fallacy... in which I pointed out the fallacy:
"(The Second Amendment) has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups I have ever seen in my lifetime."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger
What you don't seem to understand is that an appeal to authority fallacy says nothing about the veracity or falsity of the underlying assertion. The fallacy is in the use of a statement from authority towards that end in a logical argument. As such, it's a fallacy to accept the imprimatur of the authority as necessarily "relevant". It might be relevant, it might not. But taking the word of the authority in the absence of the actual proof of its relevancy is a fallacy, pure and simple.
And please not that you didn't just say "relevant". You claimed that the study was "evidence":
- - - Updated - - -
What's ironic is that I already had a copy of that wikipedia page open on another tab before you even linked it. I know exactly what an appeal to authority fallacy is, thanks.
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed for using a 10-year-old's argument? "Ha, you're wrong, but I can't be bothered to explain why."
On the other hand, we have a saying in german that roughly translates to "you can claim everything you want".
The fallacy is accepting the author's word (the abstract) as relevant or evidence in the logical argument that we're engaging in without seeing the actual data and/or methodology.
Basically, using the author's word about the study to further PRE 9-11's argument is a logical fallacy. The study could be factual, or it could be erroneous, but either way, based on the rules of logic, we cannot simply take the author's word for it. We cannot imply that the author's word has weight, relevance, or use it as evidence, either.
The data and methodology of the study is evidence. The abstract is not.