Is it, though? Like let's go down some similar lines of logic:

> All websites that are dangerous should be banned. Hacker News is a dangerous website. Therefore Hacker News should be banned.

> Cigarette smoking causes cancer. Things that cause cancer should be illegal. Therefore, cigarette smoking should be illegal.

> Things that can harm children should be taken away. Phones can harm children. Therefore, phones should be taken away

All of these function as the exact same logic posited in the study. A is B. B is C. Therefore, A is C. However, this really doesn't apply to the categories above because when you start talking about 'dangerous' or 'causes cancer' or 'harms children' etc there is a wide berth for rational disagreement.

> when you start talking about 'dangerous' or 'causes cancer' or 'harms children' etc there is a wide berth for rational disagreement

That doesn't matter as long as the meaning of words remains the same throughout the argument.

The meaning of the word can remain the same, but the way something has the property of said word can vary drastically. As a thought experiment:

Dangerous things should be banned.

Riding your bike without a helmet is dangerous.

Doing cocaine is dangerous.

Driving a car is dangerous.

Ergo, those three items listed above should be banned.

Are all of these actions equally dangerous? The answer almost everyone would give is no. That's where the bias enters into play. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all throughout.

Do you understand the concept of "logical validity" [1]? The argument you stated is valid if "dangerous" means exactly the same thing in each and every clause. That doesn't mean the premises (in particular the first one) are true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)