Talk:Recognizing Fallacies/Fallacies of Relevance

A fallacious example of a fallacy?
In Irrelevant conclusions the following example is given:

"During the 2016 Republican presidential debates, then candidate Carly Fiorina said: "We need the strongest military on the face of the planet, and everyone has to know it. And, specifically, what that means is we need about 50 Army brigades, we need about 36 Marine battalions, we need somewhere between 300 and 350 naval ships, we need to upgrade every leg of the nuclear triad…"

This statement is a fallacy. The US already has the strongest military on the face of the planet by far, so no additional military buildup is required to become the strongest. Also, the major threats facing the US are terror threats by non-state actors. The buildup of conventional weapons she advocated here does not address the prevailing threat."

The problem here is that the conclusions drawn in the example themselves are not relevant to the to the premise of its argument. Premise 1: The US already has the strongest military on the face of the planet by far, so no additional military buildup is required to become the strongest Premise 2 Also, the major threats facing the US are terror threats by non-state actors. The buildup of conventional weapons she advocated here does not address the prevailing threat." apparent conclusion the quote is a fallacy

Premise 1 is irrelevant in its support of the idea that the quote is a fallacy as it does not matter whether or not The US already has the strongest military is is not relevant to whether or not it is will be needed in the future nor if upgrading will be needed to maintain said strength.

Premise 2 is irrelevant in its support of the quote being a fallacy as it is a total red herring. The quote is addressing what needs to be done with the military and is not about other threats. Moreover the existence of other threats has no bearing on whether or not an upgrade is needed.

Interestingly enough candidate Fiorina's argument (assuming it is complete as written) is not without problem. Namely She has not connected premise with her conclusion.--96.84.73.145 (discuss) 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)