A fallacy in Exception part of "Appeal to Emotion"

I think one thing that's important to realize is that, while we humans like to think of ourselves as being purely logical creatures, that's not the case. Logic is great for proving that a point you're making is true, but not always great for convincing people that they should care about the point you're making. For instance, an economist could show you all the numbers about how a flat tax rate would reduce the spending power of those in the lowest income bracket. Even if it's logically bulletproof, why should you care? Add in a testimonial about a single mother who struggles to make ends meet and would be unable to feed her children under a flat tax rate, and suddenly it becomes important.

Granted, this is not a valid tactic in every case. If I am giving a presentation to my boss about a new piece of equipment, he's really only going to care about the return on investment. Appealing to the humanity of the equipment manufacturer generally isn't going to help make my case.

That said, maybe I'd have an issue with listing this as an exception, rather than some other category. If you look at other fallacies that have exceptions listed, it's typically going to list ways in which you can bolster the logical validity of an argument while appearing to use the fallacy in question. For instance, if you were to cite the fact that climate scientists across the world are in near-unanimous agreement that man-made climate change is occurring, you would appear to be using appeal to authority . But, as those opinions are rooted in scientific evidence, it remains a valid argument. Using appeal to emotion in this way doesn't necessarily bolster the logical validity of your argument, but can be used as a supplement to an argument that's already logically valid. In that regard it's also important to point out the "Fallacy fallacy," that a fallacious argument is not necessarily false, nor does using a logical fallacy in one part of your argument invalidate other parts of your argument.

I am assuming your points are arguments against what I wrote, so I will treat them as such.

1) I am referring to emotion is used in addition to login, not "in" logic.

2) I didn't write we must be emotional everywhere nor even suggested it.

3) Never wrote that it did not suggested it.

4) Most arguments are not ones that can be decided by logic alone. Thus, emotion plays a key role. For example, should abortion be legal?

5) It is a fact that virtually every great communicator incorporates emotion. Nowhere did I write or even suggest that because of this reason , the reader should too.

For more clarity on this and how Aristotle viewed the importance of emotion, look up "Aristotle's pathos, logos, and ethos."