Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance involve arguments that are not logically connected to the issue or are based on irrelevant factors, like emotions, authority, or popular opinion. We’ve already seen one example in the previous case study of politicians jumping to irrelevant conclusions. This lesson uses examples from politics and everyday scenarios to illustrate some common fallacies of relevance so we can navigate our lives more logically.

Appeal to emotion

Let’s imagine a politician on social media fallaciously arguing using an appeal to emotion, as shown below.

In this post, the politician uses emotional language to appeal to his audience’s gratitude and respect for war-returned veterans. By framing the opponent’s vote as heartless and uncaring, the politician tries to sway voters based on their emotions rather than on the merits of the bill or the opponent’s actual position. This is an example of the appeal to emotion fallacy.

The actual bill in question could be about funding for homeless veterans, but the post is using emotional language to create a false narrative. It’s possible that the opponents voted against the bill not because they don’t care about homeless veterans but because they have concerns about the funding mechanism or because they believe there are more effective ways to address the issue. The politician engages in fallacious reasoning by misrepresenting the opponent’s position and appealing to the audience’s emotions.

It’s important to have a reasoned and fact-based discussion about important issues like supporting homeless veterans rather than ...