Here in the D.C. area there is a commercial currently driving me crazy. This is how it plays out (paraphrased):
The dedicated golfer does not allow distractions like swinging a racket of hitting a ball to interfere with their pursuit of their sport; therefore these dedicated golfers have lower scores.
So far, so good, but catch this:
We specialize in selling Mercedes and only Mercedes; therefore we are able to keep our prices low.
Is there a name for this kind of fallacy other than stupid and wrong?
Technically all formal fallacies are non sequiturs (lit. “it does not follow”) so this is a more specific type of fallacy. In this case, it falls in the family of disjoint or digressionary fallacies, in a similar vein to “If Chewbacca is a Wookie, you must acquit”, or propositionally, “A is in the set of B, therefore C,” without establishing the connection of C to B, or C to A, or indeed, to anything at all.
Note that this doesn’t make the claims of the fallacy false, just the argument presented in support of the claim. We may assume that the vendor in question does, in fact, sell and service only Mercedes automobiles, and it may be true that their prices are lower than competing vendors. There is nothing express or implied, however, which demonstrates that limiting one’s product line exclusively to Mercedes would result in lower prices.
I’d call that a non sequitur as well. Pro golfers aren’t good at their game just because they’re oblivious to things going on around them; they’re good because of natural talent and a lot of dedicated practice.
Anyway, the main argument (“We specialize in selling Mercedes and only Mercedes; therefore we are able to keep our prices low,”) doesn’t beg an external rationale. It is a complete statement in and of itself, unlinked to the previous statement about golfers. Now, if they said something like, “At Malarkey Mercedes, we’re the pro golfers of the auto sales world,” then they’d be making some kind of explicit analogy, but the loose implication that there is some implication between golfing and selling cars isn’t even strong enough to be falsified; it is just a collection of two claims with non-existent causal or relational links.
Their point could be “core competency”. If you have to spend extra overhead learning/administering different programs with different manufacturers, it’s possible to have higher administrative overhead (as a ratio to total cars sold). The tie to the golfer would be the amount of time/energy a human has to spread out over multiple sports.