In fallacies of relevance something is or is perceived as unclear in the argument. So something seen as being irrelevant. So what we're going to do in this video is talk about fallacies of reasoning. Where the audience perceives the evidence to be irrelevant to the claim. So what are a couple of these? Well, to begin with, there's an ad populum fallacy. So in an ad populum fallacy, the speaker uses popular support for a claim instead of maybe more appropriate support. >> I love my iPhone. Apple sells the best phones. >> I like my Samsung. >> Okay, well enjoy your inferior product. >> Okay so, we're doing this. Why does Apple make the best phones? >> Well, they sell the most, they outsell everyone. So clearly they sell the best product. >> All right, so that's a pretty basic example. But the argument here can be seen as either valid or invalid, why? It depends on whether or not sales figures are relevant to the claim being made. So what does best smartphone mean here, right? That's a value claim. That only having popular support using support of it. So, a good claim for that evidence would be something like, Apple makes the most popular phones, ooh great, then sales figure are the perfect way to show that. The problem is when the speaker uses popular support and see's it as relevant but the listener doesn't see it as well. Remember, popular supports proves support. It doesn't necessarily prove value. Now, ad populum has bad evidence. A non sequiter has unclear evidence. Non sequiter simply means it does not follow, the claim does not follow from the evidence. Now I had this happen to me and I've heard of others having very similar experiences. So years ago, I'm shopping online. So I'm buying books, I'm on Amazon, and sure enough, I get the Amazon recommendations. So these are just algorithms that take your search habits and spit out similar products. Well this was years ago, and President Bill Clinton's autobiography had just come out. And sure enough, I'm online and I get this notification that says hey, you will like Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life. Because you also bought a handbook of logical fallacies. I was like okay, well you could probably take that a couple of different ways. A staunch political, republican opponent would probably go, that makes perfectly logical sense to me. That evidence follows from that claim, that claim follows from that evidence. I enjoy fallacies and that Clinton, he produced a lot of fallacies, the liar. Okay, but that's not me. So I was a little less clear on the relationship between that claim, I'll enjoy buying and reading this book. And that evidence that I also did buy a handbook of logical fallacies. All of this is to suggest that you're making an argument for your audience not for you. You need to be very clear on the relationship between your evidence and your claim. Your evidence might be good, but you need to show how and why it advances your claim. You don't want you audience to perceive your evidence as being irrelevant. [MUSIC]