Critical Thinking and Persuasive Reasoning: A Practical Guide - Chapter 6: Relevance (Red Herring) Fallacies

Introduction: When Arguments Go Off Track

In persuasive communication, not all arguments fail because of incorrect facts or flawed logic. Some fail because they veer off topic entirely. These are known as relevance fallacies—also called red herring fallacies—and they occur when a speaker introduces something irrelevant to the actual issue, often to distract or manipulate. Rather than engaging with the point being made, the arguer changes the subject or appeals to emotion, hoping the audience won’t notice the shift.

The term “red herring” comes from an old tactic of dragging a smelly fish across a trail to throw hunting dogs off the scent. In discourse, red herrings do the same: they mislead. These fallacies are extremely common in political rhetoric, media interviews, online debates, and even casual conversations. They often feel persuasive because they tap into emotion or bias—but they ultimately distract us from rational analysis.

This chapter explores the most common red herring fallacies, showing how they appear in both public arguments and everyday life. By learning to recognize these patterns, we become better equipped to stay focused, respond thoughtfully, and avoid being misled.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It shifts attention away from the logic of the claim and toward the speaker’s character, background, or associations.

Real-world example:
A journalist questions a company’s environmental practices, and a spokesperson responds, “You’re not even a scientist. You probably drive a gas car to work every day.”
Rather than addressing the concern, the response targets the speaker.

Everyday example:
“You can’t give me advice about mental health. You’re a total mess yourself.”
This attack on character deflects from the advice itself, which may still be valid.

There are variations, including abusive ad hominem (direct insult), circumstantial ad hominem (attacking a person’s motives or circumstances), and guilt by association (discrediting someone based on who they’re linked to). None address the argument—they just sidestep it.

Straw Man

The straw man fallacy happens when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the actual point, they construct a weaker version of it—a “straw man”—and then knock it down.

Real-world example:
A city councilmember proposes restrictions on short-term rentals to preserve housing. An opponent replies, “They want to ban having guests in your own home.”
That’s not the proposal—but the exaggerated version is easier to criticize.

Everyday example:
“I think we should eat out less to save money.”
“Oh, so you just want us to never have any fun again?”
The first comment is about budgeting; the second turns it into a false extreme.

The straw man is especially common on social media, where speed and outrage often replace accuracy. One antidote is charitable interpretation: rephrase opposing views in their strongest, fairest form before responding.

Tu Quoque ("You Too")ue ("You Too")

The tu quoque fallacy, also called appeal to hypocrisy, occurs when someone deflects criticism by accusing their opponent of hypocrisy. Rather than defending a position, the speaker turns the accusation around: “You do it too!”

Real-world example:
A politician is asked about accepting corporate donations. Instead of answering, they reply, “What about you? You’ve taken even more money from special interest groups.”
This doesn’t address whether their own behavior is justifiable—it’s just deflection.

Everyday example:
“You should really stop vaping—it’s not good for you.”
“Oh please, you used to smoke cigarettes every day.”
Pointing out hypocrisy may feel satisfying, but it doesn’t excuse the original behavior or argument.

Tu quoque derails discussions by focusing on personal failings rather than the issue itself. Even if someone is inconsistent, that doesn’t automatically make their claim false.

Misplacing the Burden of Proof

Sometimes the person making a claim tries to make everyone else do the work of disproving it. That’s backwards. In general, the side that asserts a claim—especially one that is unusual, low-credibility, or would change the status quo—owes the reasons. Shifting that responsibility is a relevance fallacy: it distracts from providing support and turns the exchange into a chase.

1) Simple reversal (“prove me wrong”)

The speaker asserts something and then demands the listener disprove it.

Real-world example: “I believe the former president’s birth certificate was a forgery—can you prove it isn’t?” The accuser must offer evidence; forgery is the exception, not the rule.

Everyday example: “Ghosts are real. Unless you can prove they aren’t, I’m right.” (See also Appeal to Ignorance, below.)

2) Status-quo presumption (change vs. no-change)

All else equal, the burden falls on the party who wants to change existing policy, practice, or belief; the defender of the status quo doesn’t have to disprove every alternative.

Real-world example: “Guns should be outlawed—I bet you can’t think of a single good reason they shouldn’t.” In the U.S., rights to gun ownership are recognized; the changer must justify removing them.

3) Outlandish-claim presumption (initial credibility)

When an issue is factual, the side with the more outlandish or low-credibility claim bears the burden. Ask: which claim starts with lower prior plausibility? That side needs the evidence.

4) Legal presumption (“innocent until proved guilty”)

In criminal contexts, the burden is fixed: prosecution must prove guilt; the defense need not prove innocence. This is what “innocent until proved guilty” means.

5) Rhetorical baiting (“How could anyone object…?”)

A speaker poses a question that implicitly flips the burden and pressures the listener to defend a negative, instead of supplying reasons for the positive claim.

Real-world mini-dialogue:

Jill: “We should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.”

Alice: “That would be a mistake.”

Jill: “How could anyone object to more highways?”

Jill’s last move wrongly pushes Alice to do the proving; Jill still owes the case for expansion.

6) Appeal to Ignorance (a version of misplacing the burden)

Claiming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false (or vice versa) swaps evidence for mere lack of disproof. That’s a specific form of this fallacy.

Example: “Nobody has proved ghosts don’t exist; therefore they do.” Lack of disproof isn’t proof; be suspicious when someone treats your inability to refute their claim as support for it.

How to keep the discussion on track: Ask, “Who is making the claim?” and “Which side changes the status quo or makes the lower-credibility assertion?” That’s where the burden belongs. If someone tries to hand it to you, hand it back—politely—and ask for reasons.

Red Herring

A red herring fallacy introduces an unrelated issue to distract from the actual topic. It’s broader than the other fallacies in this chapter, which are specific types of distraction. A red herring might involve changing the subject, raising irrelevant concerns, or steering the conversation into emotionally charged territory.

Real-world example:
During a press briefing on rising tuition costs, a university spokesperson responds, “Let’s not forget how much we’ve expanded our sustainability programs this year.”
Important, maybe—but not the question at hand.

Everyday example:
“You said you’d help clean the kitchen.”
“Well, I did the dishes yesterday, and I always take out the trash.”
None of that addresses whether the kitchen was cleaned as promised.

Red herrings are often subtle and tempting. They feel connected but don’t resolve the claim. Spotting them requires asking, “Is this truly relevant, or just a distraction?”

Appeal to Emotion

An appeal to emotion fallacy tries to win an argument by triggering feelings rather than presenting relevant reasons. Emotional appeals can be effective in persuasion—but when emotion replaces logic, it becomes a fallacy.

There are many emotional appeals, including pity, fear, and pride.

Appeal to pity example (real-world):
A student caught plagiarizing says, “If I fail this class, I’ll lose my scholarship and disappoint my whole family.”
This is emotionally difficult—but doesn’t change whether plagiarism occurred.

Appeal to fear example (political ad):
“If we allow refugees into the country, your family won’t be safe.”
This stokes fear without offering evidence that refugees are dangerous.

Everyday appeal to pride:
“You’re not one of those gullible people who falls for climate change, right?”
This flatters identity to bypass real discussion.

Appeals to emotion become fallacies when they substitute feeling for reason. Effective arguments may move us, but they must also inform us.

Appeal to Popularity

An appeal to popularity fallacy (also known as bandwagon appeal) argues that a claim must be true or good simply because many people believe or do it. The popularity of an idea is not evidence of its accuracy—just of its spread.

Real-world example:
“Millions of people use this weight loss supplement, so it must work.”
That’s marketing—not proof.

Everyday example:
“Everyone in our friend group vapes—it’s totally normal.”
Commonality doesn’t mean safety or wisdom.

Appealing to what’s popular taps into social belonging and fear of exclusion. But in critical thinking, the crowd is not always right. History is filled with popular beliefs that turned out to be false—or harmful.

Appeal to Tradition

The appeal to tradition fallacy claims something must be good or right because it has “always been done that way.” This resists change without examining whether the tradition still serves a purpose.

Real-world example:
“We shouldn’t change our hiring policy. This is how we’ve run the company for 50 years.”
That doesn’t address whether the policy is fair or effective now.

Everyday example:
“Why do I have to go to church? Because our family always has.”
That might be a reason for loyalty, but it’s not evidence for truth or necessity.

Traditions can carry meaning, but critical thinkers ask whether they still make sense today.

Appeal to Novelty

The appeal to novelty is the flip side of tradition—it claims something is better just because it’s new or different. It confuses innovation with improvement.

Real-world example:
“This new curriculum is the future of education—everything else is outdated.”
Maybe so—but “new” isn’t the same as “proven.”

Everyday example:
“I’m switching to this new app—everyone’s saying it’s the next big thing.”
That doesn’t tell us whether it works well or protects privacy.

Newness can be exciting, but it isn’t an argument on its own. Critical thinkers separate novelty from actual value.

False Dilemma

A false dilemma (or false dichotomy) presents a situation as having only two options when others exist. It simplifies complexity into black-and-white choices, often to pressure agreement.

Real-world example:
“You’re either for free speech, or you want to censor everyone who disagrees with you.”
This ignores nuance and possible middle ground.

Everyday example:
“You either help me move this weekend, or you don’t care about our friendship.”
That’s not fair—and probably not true.

False dilemmas create emotional urgency but distort the issue. Most real-life decisions have more than two sides.

Two Wrongs Make a Right

The two wrongs make a right fallacy tries to justify one bad action by pointing to another. It’s a moral shortcut: if someone else did it, I can too. But this avoids accountability and sidesteps the actual issue.

Real-world example:
A company accused of tax fraud responds, “Other corporations do this all the time—we’re just playing the same game.”
That may be true, but it doesn’t justify the action.

Everyday example:
A student says, “I only cheated on the test because half the class was doing it.”
That doesn't make cheating acceptable—it just spreads the blame.

This fallacy fuels cycles of retaliation and erodes ethical reasoning. Wrongdoing doesn’t become right just because it’s common or reactive.

Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy dismisses or accepts a claim solely based on its origin rather than its content. It assumes that if the source is flawed, the claim must be too—or vice versa.

Real-world example:
“You can’t believe anything in that news article—it’s from a left-leaning site.”
That may raise concerns, but the content should still be evaluated on its own merits.

Everyday example:
“That idea came from your ex—you shouldn’t even consider it.”
Even problematic people can have good ideas. Dismissing something just because of where it came from avoids critical engagement.

This fallacy is particularly dangerous in polarized environments where trust is divided along ideological lines. Evaluating claims means focusing on what is said—not just who said it.

Recap: Why Relevance Matters

All of the fallacies in this chapter share a common feature: they distract us. Instead of helping us evaluate the strength of a claim, they shift our attention to unrelated emotions, identities, assumptions, or tactics. They feel persuasive, but they weaken reasoning. Sometimes they’re used deliberately to manipulate. Other times, they arise from habit or defensiveness.

As critical thinkers, our goal isn’t to win arguments—it’s to clarify them. When a conversation drifts into a red herring, we can gently steer it back by asking, “How is that relevant?” or “Can we get back to the original point?” Recognizing these fallacies helps us stay focused on what matters—and encourages others to do the same.

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Real-world example:
A company accused of tax fraud responds, “Other corporations do this all the time—we’re just playing the same game.”
That may be true, but it doesn’t justify the action.

Everyday example:
A student says, “I only cheated on the test because half the class was doing it.”
That doesn't make cheating acceptable—it just spreads the blame.

This fallacy fuels cycles of retaliation and erodes ethical reasoning. Wrongdoing doesn’t become right just because it’s common or reactive.

Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy dismisses or accepts a claim solely based on its origin rather than its content. It assumes that if the source is flawed, the claim must be too—or vice versa.

Real-world example:
“You can’t believe anything in that news article—it’s from a left-leaning site.”
That may raise concerns, but the content should still be evaluated on its own merits.

This fallacy is particularly dangerous in polarized environments where trust is divided along ideological lines. Evaluating claims means focusing on what is said—not just who said it.

Recap: Why Relevance Matters

Practice Exercises

Exercise 1: Spot the Red Herring
Read each argument below and identify the red herring fallacy. Name the specific fallacy and explain why it qualifies.

“Why should I worry about climate change when there are people who can’t even afford rent?”
“You can’t criticize my driving—you were speeding last week.”
“She wants to reform public education? That’s rich coming from someone who went to private school.”
“If we don’t ban violent video games, pretty soon kids will be out committing crimes.”
“Nobody in our group likes the new safety protocols, so they must be unreasonable.”

Exercise 2: Rewrite Without the Fallacy
Take these flawed arguments and revise them to remove the red herring. Preserve the general topic, but make the reasoning stronger and more relevant.

“We shouldn’t raise taxes to fund schools—look how much the superintendent makes.”
“Don’t talk to me about honesty; you lied to me last year.”
“I don’t support that candidate because she wears weird clothes.”
Exercise 3: Fallacy Log
For one week, keep a log of fallacies you encounter in media, conversation, or social media. Include:

What was said
Where you found it
What kind of red herring it was
What the speaker might have said instead to stay on topic

Discussion Prompts

Prompt 1:
Why do you think red herring fallacies are so common in political and media discourse? What effect do they have on public understanding?

Prompt 2:
Have you ever used one of these fallacies—on purpose or by accident? What led you to shift the topic or focus on emotion rather than reasoning?

Prompt 3:
In your own life, what’s the best way to respond when someone brings up a red herring in a conversation?

Prompt 4:
Do you think appeals to emotion are always fallacious? When might it be appropriate to use emotional language—and when does it become manipulation?

Prompt 5:
Which of the red herring fallacies do you think is the hardest to resist—and why?

Glossary

Circumstantial ad hominem: A type of ad hominem fallacy in which someone attacks an opponent’s circumstances—such as their background, affiliations, or potential biases—instead of addressing the substance of their argument. Rather than engaging with the reasoning, this fallacy implies that the person's position is invalid because of their personal situation or interests.

Ad hominem: A fallacy in which the person making the argument is attacked instead of addressing the argument itself.

Appeal to emotion: A fallacy that uses emotion, such as pity, fear, or pride, in place of logical reasoning.

Appeal to novelty: A fallacy that assumes something is better or more correct because it is new or modern.

Appeal to popularity: A fallacy that assumes something is true or good just because many people believe or do it; also known as the bandwagon appeal.

Appeal to tradition: A fallacy that argues something must be correct or desirable simply because it has been done that way in the past.

Charitable interpretation: The practice of representing an opponent’s argument in its strongest, most reasonable form before responding. This approach fosters fair, respectful dialogue and helps avoid misunderstandings, straw man fallacies, and unnecessary conflict. It reflects intellectual honesty and encourages deeper engagement with opposing views.

False dilemma (false dichotomy): A fallacy that presents only two options when more exist, forcing a binary choice in a complex situation.

Genetic fallacy: A fallacy in which a claim is dismissed or accepted based on its origin or source rather than its actual content.

Guilt by association: A fallacy in which a claim or person is discredited based on their connection to an unpopular group or individual, rather than on the merits of the argument itself. It assumes that association alone is enough to invalidate someone's credibility or viewpoint.

Misplacing the burden of proof: Shifting the obligation to give reasons onto the critic or audience. Common patterns include simple reversal (“prove me wrong”), status-quo presumption (changers owe reasons), outlandish-claim presumption (lower initial credibility owes support), legal presumption (prosecution bears the burden), rhetorical baiting (“How could anyone object?”), and Appeal to Ignorance (treating lack of disproof as proof).

Red herring fallacy: A fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert attention away from the original issue. It sidetracks the discussion, often by appealing to emotion or bringing up a loosely related point, to avoid addressing the actual argument.

Red herring fallacies: A general category of fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert attention from the original issue.

Relevance fallacies: Errors in reasoning that occur when an argument includes information or tactics that are not directly related to the issue at hand. Instead of addressing the actual claim, these fallacies distract the audience by shifting focus to unrelated topics, emotions, or personal attacks. Common examples include red herrings, ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, and straw man arguments.

Straw man: A fallacy where someone misrepresents or exaggerates an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Tu quoque: A fallacy that deflects criticism by accusing the other person of hypocrisy; also known as "you too."

Two wrongs make a right: A fallacy that attempts to justify a wrong action by pointing out that others have done the same or worse.

References

Bennett, B., & Royle, N. (2016). Critical thinking: A student’s introduction (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Kahane, H., & Cavender, N. (2014). Logic and contemporary rhetoric: The use of reason in everyday life (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2017). Critical thinking (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Weston, A. (2018). A rulebook for arguments (5th ed.). Hackett Publishing.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124