What type of reasoning is involved when someone argues that a candidate’s appeal is more important than their policies?

The argument that a candidate’s appeal is more important than their policies illustrates a type of reasoning known as an inconsequent argument. Inconsequent arguments, or non sequiturs, occur when the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises provided. In this case, prioritizing a candidate’s appeal over their policies suggests that the decision-making process is based on factors that do not necessarily relate to the candidate's ability to govern effectively or implement beneficial policies.

By focusing on appeal rather than substantiated policies, the reasoning distracts from crucial content that should influence voter decisions, such as the candidate’s qualifications, proposed actions, and overall political philosophy. This could indicate that the argument diverts from a logical assessment of a candidate's suitability based on their actual stances and capabilities, further emphasizing the incongruence between the reasoning presented and the matter at hand.