Within Fallacy Lab
Is This Point Actually Relevant?
Red herrings introduce interesting but irrelevant material that avoids the question being asked.
On this page
- Distraction tactics
- Relevance tests
- Returning to the issue
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
A red herring is a diversion: an argument move that draws attention away from the point under discussion by introducing something interesting, emotive, complicated or only loosely connected. Within logical fallacies, it belongs to the family of relevance fallacies: the problem is not that the new topic is always false, but that it does not answer the question being asked. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes a red herring as a kind of “smokescreen” created by bringing up an irrelevant issue, while Douglas Walton’s work on fallacies of relevance treats diversion as a strategic shift away from the issue in dispute. [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]iep.utm.eduInternet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyFallaciesIgnoratio Elenchi. See Irrelevant Conclusion… If you produce a smokescreen by bringing up…
This matters because red herrings often work by sounding reasonable. A speaker may mention a genuine problem, a real hypocrisy, a vivid anecdote or a morally charged comparison. The listener then follows the new trail and forgets to ask whether the original claim has been answered. Spotting the fallacy is therefore less about shouting “irrelevant” and more about testing the connection between the point offered and the point that actually needs support.
How the diversion works
A red herring usually has three parts. First, there is an issue on the table: a claim, criticism, question or burden of proof. Second, a new point is introduced that feels connected enough to deserve attention. Third, the discussion drifts towards the new point before the original one has been settled. The red herring succeeds when the audience treats movement as progress.
For example:
A: “Did the council ignore the safety inspection report before approving the building?”
B: “The council has delivered more affordable housing than any administration in the last decade.”
B’s answer may be politically relevant in a broad debate about housing, but it does not answer the narrower question about the inspection report. The issue has moved from “Was a safety warning ignored?” to “Has the council done good work elsewhere?” That shift may protect B from the harder question without resolving it.
The fallacy is especially powerful when the diversion is emotionally stronger than the original issue. A dry question about evidence can be overtaken by a story about loyalty, patriotism, unfair treatment, personal hardship or hypocrisy. This is why public arguments often contain red herrings that are not random at all; they are chosen because they pull attention towards ground where the speaker is more comfortable.
Distraction tactics
Red herrings are not one fixed sentence pattern. They are a family of diversion moves that all create the same practical result: the original argumentative task is abandoned.
Changing the scale is one common method. A local question is answered with a global concern: “Why did this school fail to report bullying?” becomes “The real issue is the collapse of discipline across society.” The broader issue may be worth discussing, but it should not erase the specific question.
Changing the comparison is another. A speaker responds to criticism by pointing to someone worse: “Why did your department overspend?” becomes “Other departments have wasted far more.” That may be relevant if the question is comparative budgeting, but not if the question is whether this overspend was justified.
Changing the moral frame can be even more effective. A practical question becomes a loyalty test: “Does this policy reduce waiting times?” becomes “Why are you attacking the people who work so hard in the service?” The emotional force of the reply can make the original policy question seem hostile, even though the two issues are separate.
Flooding the discussion with details can also function as a red herring. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy links smokescreen tactics to excessive or irrelevant detail that obscures the point; when that smokescreen is built from an irrelevant issue, it becomes a red herring. [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]iep.utm.eduInternet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyFallaciesIgnoratio Elenchi. See Irrelevant Conclusion… If you produce a smokescreen by bringing up…
A useful rule is this: a detail is not a red herring merely because it is new, surprising or uncomfortable. It becomes suspect when it draws the conversation away from the claim that still needs to be proved, answered or tested.
Relevance tests
The best way to handle a suspected red herring is not to argue about motives. Intent is hard to prove. The more reliable test is whether the new point changes the evidential position of the original claim.
Ask three questions:
- What exact question was being answered?
Write it down in plain language. “Did the company disclose the risk?” is different from “Has the company created jobs?” A red herring often survives because the original question was never pinned down.
- Would the new point make the original claim more or less likely?
If not, it may be a diversion. “The accused has done charity work” does not by itself answer whether the accused committed the act. It may affect sentencing, reputation or moral judgement, but not the factual question.
- Has the burden of proof quietly shifted?
A person asked to defend a claim may instead demand that critics answer a different claim. That can turn the critic into the one doing all the explaining while the first argument escapes scrutiny.
These tests also prevent overuse of the label. Some context really is relevant. If the question is whether a policy is fair, comparable cases may matter. If the question is whether a criticism is selectively applied, evidence of inconsistent standards may matter. The fallacy appears when the contextual point replaces the original issue rather than clarifying it.
Red herring, straw man and missing the point
Red herrings are easily confused with neighbouring fallacies, especially straw man arguments and irrelevant conclusions.
A straw man distorts someone’s position and attacks the distorted version. If a person says, “We should regulate this industry more tightly,” and the reply is, “My opponent wants to destroy all private enterprise,” the problem is misrepresentation. The original view has been replaced with an easier target.
A red herring does not have to distort the opponent’s claim. It may simply leave it behind. If the reply is, “This industry employs thousands of people,” the statement may be true, but it does not answer whether tighter regulation is justified.
An irrelevant conclusion, sometimes associated with ignoratio elenchi, reaches a conclusion that does not address the point at issue. Walton’s classification is helpful because it treats the red herring as especially tied to diversion: the arguer interjects a distracting controversy that leads the audience away from the original line of discussion. [ojs.uwindsor.ca]ojs.uwindsor.caClassification of Fallacies of Relevance | Informal Logicby D Walton · 2004 · Cited by 31 — A key difference cited is that in a case wher…
The distinction matters in practice. Calling every irrelevant remark a red herring can make discussion sloppy. A person may simply misunderstand the question, draw the wrong conclusion, or use weak evidence. A red herring is clearest when the new material actively pulls the dialogue onto a different track.
Whataboutism as a familiar diversion
One modern form of red herring is whataboutism: responding to criticism by pointing to another wrongdoing instead of addressing the original charge. “What about your side?” can sometimes expose a genuine double standard, but it becomes fallacious when it is used to avoid the issue rather than test fairness.
For example:
A: “This minister gave a misleading statement.”
B: “What about the misleading statements made by the opposition five years ago?”
B may have raised a legitimate issue for a broader discussion about political honesty. But unless it helps answer whether this minister misled people, it diverts attention. The original claim still stands or falls on its own evidence.
Recent computational argumentation research treats whataboutism as a difficult phenomenon because the phrase “what about” is not automatically fallacious. A 2024 study on detecting whataboutism in online discourse notes that researchers must distinguish between whataboutism as propaganda or deflection and “what about” constructions used for legitimate framing or context. [arXiv]arxiv.orgarXivPaying Attention to Deflections: Mining Pragmatic Nuances for Whataboutism Detection in Online DiscourseFebruary 15, 2024…
That caution is important. Not every comparison is a dodge. The relevance test is whether the comparison helps resolve the issue, reveals a rule being applied inconsistently, or merely moves attention away from an uncomfortable answer.
Public debate and the “dead cat” version
In politics and media strategy, red herrings can be deliberately theatrical. The so-called “dead cat” strategy refers to introducing a shocking or attention-grabbing topic so that everyone talks about that topic instead of the damaging issue already on the table. The phrase is widely associated with a 2013 Boris Johnson column describing the tactic as putting something so startling “on the table” that the conversation moves to it. [Wikipedia]WikipediaDead cat strategyDead cat strategy
This is a useful real-world illustration because it shows that red herrings are not always subtle. Sometimes the diversion is loud, offensive or bizarre precisely because its job is to dominate attention. In a media environment driven by clips, headlines and social sharing, a dramatic distraction can work even when many observers recognise it as a distraction.
The practical lesson is that identifying a red herring is not enough. People may still follow it because it is more entertaining than the original issue. Returning to the issue requires discipline: restating the unanswered question, separating the new controversy from the old one, and refusing to treat attention as evidence.
Returning to the issue
The strongest response to a red herring is calm redirection. A direct accusation can make the discussion more adversarial, especially if the other person insists the new point is relevant. A better move is to acknowledge any legitimate part of the diversion, then bring the conversation back to the unresolved question.
Useful responses include:
- “That may be important, but how does it answer the original question?”
- “We can discuss that next. First, did this claim have evidence behind it?”
- “That comparison might matter if we are discussing consistency. Are you saying it changes whether the original action happened?”
- “Let’s separate two issues: the broader context and the specific claim.”
This approach works because it does not require mind-reading. The speaker may be deliberately evasive, confused, defensive or simply following an association. The redirection focuses on relevance rather than character.
In writing, the same principle applies. A paragraph can become a red herring when it contains interesting background that does not support the thesis. University writing guidance commonly frames fallacies as weaknesses that undermine argument quality because the reasons offered fail to support the claim. [The Writing Center]writingcenter.unc.eduThe Writing Center FallaciesThe Writing CenterFallacies - The Writing CenterThis handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writin… A good revision test is to ask of each paragraph: “What claim does this help prove?” If the answer is unclear, the paragraph may be a distraction even if it is well written.
Why red herrings are persuasive
Red herrings exploit a normal feature of human attention: people follow salience. A vivid issue feels important. A moral accusation feels urgent. A complicated side point can create the impression that the matter is too tangled to judge. None of those effects proves relevance, but each can interrupt the careful link between claim and support.
They also exploit conversational politeness. When someone raises a new point, listeners often feel obliged to answer it. That is usually a good habit in ordinary conversation, but it can be misused in argument. A person who keeps introducing side issues can force critics to chase every trail while the original question disappears.
This is why the central skill is not memorising the name of the fallacy. It is learning to hold the line between two different tasks: recognising that a new issue may be interesting, and refusing to let it replace the question that still needs an answer.
The core takeaway
A red herring is not just “something irrelevant”. It is an argument diversion that changes what the audience is paying attention to. It may appear as a side story, a moral comparison, a flood of detail, a theatrical controversy, or a whataboutist counter-accusation. The shared mechanism is the same: the discussion moves away from the issue that was supposed to be tested.
The practical defence is to make relevance explicit. Name the original question, ask how the new point bears on it, separate context from proof, and return to the issue before accepting a change of subject. In everyday reasoning, that habit does more than expose a fallacy; it protects the conversation from being steered by whatever happens to be most distracting.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Is This Point Actually Relevant?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments
Directly covers red herrings and related reasoning errors.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.
Endnotes
-
Source: ojs.uwindsor.ca
Link: https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2133Source snippet
Classification of Fallacies of Relevance | Informal Logicby D Walton · 2004 · Cited by 31 — A key difference cited is that in a case wher...
-
Source: arxiv.org
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09934Source snippet
arXivPaying Attention to Deflections: Mining Pragmatic Nuances for Whataboutism Detection in Online DiscourseFebruary 15, 2024...
Published: February 15, 2024
-
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Dead cat strategy
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Red herring
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: List of fallacies
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Chewbacca defense
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense -
Source: Wikipedia
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism -
Source: youtube.com
Title: Red Herring
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0STrY58i4Source snippet
The "Red Herring" Fallacy Explained in 2 Minutes...
-
Source: iep.utm.edu
Link: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/Source snippet
Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyFallaciesIgnoratio Elenchi. See Irrelevant Conclusion... If you produce a smokescreen by bringing up...
-
Source: writingcenter.unc.edu
Title: The Writing Center Fallacies
Link: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/Source snippet
The Writing CenterFallacies - The Writing CenterThis handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writin...
-
Source: plato.stanford.edu
Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ -
Source: informallogic.ca
Link: https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/7304 -
Source: unr.edu
Link: https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/logical-fallacies -
Source: sciencelearn.org.nz
Title: red herring
Link: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/red-herring
Additional References
-
Source: informallogic.ca
Title: [Informal Logic]({{ ‘informal-logic/’ | relative_url }}) Classification of Fallacies of Relevance!
Link: https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/download/2133/1577Source snippet
Informal Logicby D Walton · 2004 · Cited by 31 — A key difference cited is that in a case where the red herring fallacy has been committe...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: 19 Common Fallacies, Explained
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwUe7T2OKQESource snippet
Red herring logical fallacy relevance diversion Red Herring - Critical Thinking Fallacies | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY Wireless Philosophy...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: Red Herring Fallacies: Lesson and Activity
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mK5CPzc85kSource snippet
The Red Herring Fallacy: Definition & Examples (Easy Explanation)...
-
Source: facebook.com
Link: https://www.facebook.com/DetroitNews/posts/deadcatting-is-a-political-strategy-of-saying-something-extreme-to-divert-the-at/1324222583075342/ -
Source: linkedin.com
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dead-cat-strategy-why-we-dont-chase-brian-tinsman-xkxbe -
Source: tvtropes.org
Link: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense -
Source: quizlet.com
Link: https://quizlet.com/363396369/critical-thinking-relevance-red-herring-fallacies-flash-cards/ -
Source: amateurlogician.com
Link: https://amateurlogician.com/diversion-relevancy-fallacies/ -
Source: philpeople.org
Link: https://philpeople.org/profiles/41605/publication_attributions?order=viewings&page=2 -
Source: effectiviology.com
Link: https://effectiviology.com/red-herring/
Topic Tree