IMO, the illusion of relevance (wherein the considerations are demonstrably not relevant) should be added to the list of logical fallacies. Yes, I realize that such illusions are manifest in "red herring" and "straw man" logical fallacies. In rape trials the defense frequently deliberately calls attention to the victim's sexual relations with other men who are not the defendant in the usually successful effort to sway the jury to conclude that the victim's involvement was consensual, or at least to introduce that critical element of reasonable doubt. Hence it isn't likely, to take an extreme example, that a prostitute can persuade a prosecutor to prosecute a charge of rape, (theft maybe, but not rape). It's unjust, and it's a factor in the exponential rise in unreported sexual assaults in the United States.
But more to Michael's point, there are alarming instances that involve relevant facts to establish the supporting element of a logical syllogism, that require complex justification for which the target audience lack the frame of reference, interest and attention span needed to follow sufficiently enough to be persuaded of the desired conclusion.
All logical fallacies must be reducible to the fundamental laws and thus can be shown to imply contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is all we need to identify fallacies, which implies that all fallacies are fundamentally the same kind of fallacy.
IMO, the illusion of relevance (wherein the considerations are demonstrably not relevant) should be added to the list of logical fallacies. Yes, I realize that such illusions are manifest in "red herring" and "straw man" logical fallacies. In rape trials the defense frequently deliberately calls attention to the victim's sexual relations with other men who are not the defendant in the usually successful effort to sway the jury to conclude that the victim's involvement was consensual, or at least to introduce that critical element of reasonable doubt. Hence it isn't likely, to take an extreme example, that a prostitute can persuade a prosecutor to prosecute a charge of rape, (theft maybe, but not rape). It's unjust, and it's a factor in the exponential rise in unreported sexual assaults in the United States.
But more to Michael's point, there are alarming instances that involve relevant facts to establish the supporting element of a logical syllogism, that require complex justification for which the target audience lack the frame of reference, interest and attention span needed to follow sufficiently enough to be persuaded of the desired conclusion.
All logical fallacies must be reducible to the fundamental laws and thus can be shown to imply contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is all we need to identify fallacies, which implies that all fallacies are fundamentally the same kind of fallacy.