Informal fallacy: Red Herring or Irrelevant Thesis

The Red Herring Fallacy occurs when an irrelevant topic is introduced to throw off the trail from the original issue. It is like when they train hunting dogs by dragging dead red herrings across the trail so the hounds would be thrown off the scent; only the best dogs will remain on course. The idea is to beat your opponent via an irrelevancy so as to lead them away from the attention of the argument.



Topic Z is under discussion

Topic X is introduced under the guise of being relevant to Z (Topic X has nothing to do with Z)

Topic Z is abandoned

This sort of argument is fallacious because changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. The claim needs to be viewed on its own and not dodged or mislead due to potential collateral fears , historical issues, or other variables that may only “appear” related.

Examples:

You say that Tasters Choice tastes better Folgers. But are you forgetting that Nestle, the maker of Tasters Choice, is responsible for creating baby formula that caused thousands of infant deaths in Africa. Obviously you are mistaken. (adapted from Hurley).

What has the taste of Nestles’s coffee vs Folgers have to do with their baby formula. The past failures with the formula do not have anything to do with the current comparison between the two coffees. Regarding trusting the company, that is another issue to consider and should be looked at on its own ticket.

We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballet that the whole thing is getting obnoxious and stupid.

Regardless of the amount of issues on the ballet, each needs to be considered on its own merits and not washed away due to the amount of total bond issues currently.

Argument for making grad school requirements stricter:

“I think there is great merit in making the requirements tougher for graduate students. I recommend that you support it too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our wages to be affected.”

Considering salary changes has nothing to do with the argument of why we should make graduate standards stricter. An argument should be posited for why tougher graduation standards should be enforced at this time and not on personal salary changes that may or may not occur. Personal salaries should be discussed as a separate topic.

Thanks to:

www.hewbrew4christians.com