What is the fallacy present in the statement about Visa and American Express relating to the Olympics?

The statement about Visa and American Express relating to the Olympics exemplifies the non sequitur fallacy, which occurs when a conclusion does not logically follow from the preceding statements or premises. In this case, if the assertion about Visa or American Express includes a claim that seems unrelated or disconnected from the context of the Olympics, it leads to a conclusion that lacks logical coherence or support from the information provided.

For instance, if the statement claims that Visa's sponsorship of the Olympics means that American Express customers will be dissatisfied, this would represent a non sequitur because the dissatisfaction of American Express customers does not logically follow from Visa's presence as a sponsor. The audience might be led away from a clear connection between the two, making it unclear why the sponsorship should negatively impact customers of the other company. Thus, the reasoning does not align with the logical flow of thought expected in a valid argument. This demonstrates the non sequitur fallacy at play in the statement about Visa and American Express.