Red Herring Definition

Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the
attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in
detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters or to induce them to make false
conclusions.
Let us consider a simple example of a red herring. A teacher catches a student cheating during a
test. The student in response says, I know Ive made a mistake. But think of my parents. Theyre
going to kill me. The student uses a red herring in his response. He tries to appeal to pity to
distract his teacher from the real issue.
The term red herring means a kind of dried red fish, which has a pungent smell. In fox hunting,
hounds are prevented from catching the fox by distracting them with the strong scent of red
herring. Similarly, a person can be stopped from proving his point in an argument by distracting
him with an irrelevant issue.
Common Red Herring Examples
Some examples of red herring fallacy in casual conversations are given below:
Mother: Its bedtime Jane
Jane: Mom, how do ants feed their babies?
Mother: Dont know dear. Close your eyes now.
Jane: But mama, do ant babies cry when hungry?
This conversation shows how a child tries to distract her mother so that she [Jane] could stay
awake a little longer.
There is a lot of commotion regarding saving the environment. We cannot make this world an
Eden. What will happen if it does become Eden? Adam and Eve got bored there!
The idea of Adam and Eve getting bored in Eden throws the listeners off the real issue of
environment.
Examples of Red Herring in Literature
Mystery and suspense novels are rich with red herring examples as writers frequently use them
to veil the facts from the readers in order to develop their interest.
Example #1
The character of Bishop Aringarosa in Dan Browns novel Da Vinci Code serves as an example
of a red herring throughout the novel. The character is presented in such a way that the readers
suspect him to be the mastermind of the whole conspiracy in the church. Later it was revealed
that he was innocent. This example of a red herring in the novel distracts the readers from who
the real bad person is and thus, adds to the mystery of the story. Interestingly, the Italian
surname of the bishop Aringarosa translates in English as red herring.
Function of Red Herring
A red herring is a common device used in mystery and thriller stories to distract the reader from
identifying the real culprit. The red herring in a story can take the form of characters that the
reader suspect, but who turn out be innocent when the real murderer is identified. It aims at
keeping the readers guessing at the possibilities until the end and therefore keeps them
interested in the story. The readers enjoy solving the mysteries created by red herrings in the
story. Undoubtedly, it would be difficult to keep the readers interest, if thrillers exposed the killer
from the start.

Moreover, for politicians, red herrings come in handy as they use them frequently to dodge
difficult questions in a discussion or an argument. They do it by referring to a different issue,
which of course is irrelevant, to sidetrack from the original issue under discussion.

Description of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to
accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of
various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable
emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good
about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of
modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that
these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the
commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In
most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics
to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person
were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired
the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3
would be adequately supported.
It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing
the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to
be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war.
However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to
support. In such cases one needs to ask "what sort of claim is this person attempting to get
people to accept and act on?" Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work.
However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a political leader is attempting to
convince her followers to participate in certain acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then
her claim would be "you should participate in these acts of violence." In this case, the "evidence"
would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable
inclined towards the claim that they should engage in the acts of violence. As another example, a
beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach,
guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be "you should buy this beer." The "evidence" would
be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the beer.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued,
peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often
difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power
of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.
In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill.
Without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to
perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the

big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There
is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation.
As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a
claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.
As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some
other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad
Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be
committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his
followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an
Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making
the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would
be aimed at making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or
imagined) defect in her character.
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences between these
two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve appeals to emotions. In both
cases the fallacies aim at getting people to accept claims based on how they or others feel about
the claims and not based on evidence for the claims.
Another way to look at these two fallacies is as follows
Appeal to Popularity
1. Most people approve of X.
2. So, I should approve of X, too.
3. Since I approve of X, X must be true.
Appeal to Emotion
1. I approve of X.
2. Therefore, X is true.
On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most people approve of
the claim. In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is accepted because the individual
approves of the claim because of the emotion of approval he feels in regards to the claim.
Examples of Appeal to Emotion
1. The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people
will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will
know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.
2. The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight.
Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will
know true happiness if you try our diet!
3. Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the
government and the need to throw out the peoople who are currently in office. After
hearing the speach, Bill is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels
good about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do
because of how he feels.

AD HOMINEM (ABUSIVE)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name
calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when
the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.
Example #1:
My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman
who eats a pint of Ben and Jerrys each night!
Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the lowering
of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually made out
of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.
Example #2:
Tony wants us to believe that the origin of life was an accident. Tony is a godless person who
has spent more time in jail than in church, so the only information we should consider from him
is the best way to make license plates.
Explanation: Tony may be a godless SOB. Perhaps he did spend more time in the joint than in
church, but all this is irrelevant to his argument or truth of his claim as to the origin of life.
Exception: When the attack on the person is relevant to the argument, it is not a fallacy. In our
first example, if the issue being debated was the elimination of taxes only on Ben and Jerrys ice
cream, then pointing out her eating habits would be strong evidence of a conflict of interest.
Tip: When others verbally attack you, take it as a compliment to the quality of your argument. It
is usually a sign of desperation on their part.
Variation: Needling is attempting to make the other person angry, taking attention off of the
argument and perhaps even making the other person look foolish.

APPEAL TO FORCE
argumentum ad baculum
(also known as: argument to the cudgel, appeal to the stick, argument by vehemence [form of])
Description: When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an
attempt to justify a conclusion.
Logical Form:
If you dont accept X as true, I will hurt you.
Example #1:
Melvin: Boss, why do I have to work weekends when nobody else in the company does?
Boss: Am I sensing insubordination? I can find another employee very quickly, thanks to
Craigslist, you know.
Explanation: Melvin has asked a legitimate question to which he did not get a legitimate
answer, rather his question was deflected by a threat of force (as being forced out of his job).
Example #2:
Jordan: Dad, why do I have to spend my summer at Jesus camp?
Dad: Because if you dont, you will spend your entire summer in your room with nothing but your
Bible!
Explanation: Instead of a reason, dad gave Jordan a description of a punishment that would
happen.
Exception: If the force, coercion, or threat of force is not being used as a reason but as a fact or
consequence, then it would not be fallacious, especially when a legitimate reason is given with
the threat, direct or implied.
Melvin: Boss, why do I have to wear this goofy-looking hardhat?
Boss: It is state law; therefore, company policy. No hat, no job.
Tip: Unless you are an indentured servant (slave) or still living with your parents (slave), do not
allow others to force you into accepting something as true.
Variation: Argument by vehemence is being very loud in place of being right. This is a form of
force, or basically frightening your opponent into submission.

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much
easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to
undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren
responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to
leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting
an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in
question. More colloquially, it is also known as missing the point.
Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2] It is one of the fallacies
identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form
of ignoratio elenchi.[3][4]
Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from "ignorance of the nature of
refutation". In order to refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the
proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original,
would be an ignoratio elenchi Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to
include all cases of proving the wrong point "I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I
prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy For instance,
instead of proving that this person has committed an atrocious fraud, you prove that this fraud
he is accused of is atrocious;" The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a
certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted
issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support
the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the
original one It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of
forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption
that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in
close relation with it.[5]
Arthur Ernest Davies, "Fallacies" in A Text-Book of Logic
The phrase ignoratio elenchi is from Latin, meaning "an ignoring of a refutation". Here elenchi is
the genitive singular of the Latin noun elenchus, which is from Ancient Greek (elenchos),
meaning "an argument of disproof or refutation". [6] The translation in English of the Latin
expression has varied somewhat. Hamblin proposed "misconception of refutation" or "ignorance
of refutation" as a literal translation, [7] John Arthur Oesterle preferred "ignoring the issue", [7] Irving
Copi, Christopher Tindale and others used "irrelevant conclusion". [7][8]
Example 1: A and B are debating as to whether criticizing indirectly has any merit in general.
A: There is no point in people ranting on social media about politics, the president isn't going to
read it anyway.

B: But it's their social media, people can agree on making a petition or convey notice from many
others that they'll be signing one based on their concerns.
A: Well, I don't keep up with it anyway.
A attempts to support their position with an argument that politics ought not to be criticized
because the message isn't directly being heard by the head of state, this would make them guilty
of ignoratio elenchi because people such as B criticizing politics may have a strong message for
their peers out of frustration and to gain emphasis on the matter, rather than ever implementing
to meet the goal A devised to be the case. [9]
Example 2: A and B are debating about the law.
A: Does the law allow me to do that?
B: The law should allow you to do that because this and that.
B missed the point. The question was not if the law should allow, but if it does or not.
Argument no. 2
The argument actually supports several conclusionsThe punishment for drunk driving should
be very serious, in particularbut it doesnt support the claim that the death penalty,
specifically, is warranted.