Navigation
Focuses on identifying and deconstructing fallacies that distract from the main issue, such as Ad Hominem and Red Herring.
Have you ever 'won' an argument by making your opponent look bad, only to realize later you never actually addressed their point? You might have used a logical smoke screen without even knowing it.
The Ad Hominem (Latin for 'to the person') is a fallacy where an arguer ignores the substance of an opponent's claim and instead attacks their character, background, or physical traits. In formal logic, the truth of a statement is independent of the person stating . For example, if a known liar says 'The sun is a star,' the statement remains true. An Ad Hominem is logically invalid because the character of the speaker is usually irrelevant to the truth-value of the proposition. We can represent this flawed logic as:
Quick Check
If a doctor who smokes tells you that smoking is bad for your health, and you dismiss the claim because they are a hypocrite, which fallacy are you committing?
Answer
Ad Hominem (specifically the 'tu quoque' or 'you too' variant).
A Red Herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the audience's attention from the original issue. The name comes from the practice of using a pungent fish to distract hounds from a scent trail. In composition, this often looks like introducing a tangentially related topic that is easier to argue or more emotionally charged. Unlike the Straw Man, which misrepresents a specific view, the Red Herring simply abandons the original path entirely. It creates a 'logical gap' where the conclusion does not follow from the original premise.
1. Reporter: 'Senator, how do you justify the increase in local property taxes?' 2. Senator: 'What we really need to focus on is the lack of funding for our brave first responders who put their lives on the line every day.' 3. Analysis: The Senator avoids the math of the tax increase (the original ) by pivoting to an emotionally resonant topic (Topic ). While Topic is important, it does not answer the question about the tax justification.
Quick Check
What is the primary difference between an Ad Hominem and a Red Herring?
Answer
An Ad Hominem attacks the person making the argument, while a Red Herring introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the argument itself.
The Straw Man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. By oversimplifying, exaggerating, or taking a quote out of context, the arguer creates a 'straw' version of the original position—one that is flimsy and easy to knock down. Once they 'defeat' the straw man, they claim victory over the original, more complex argument. This is a failure of intellectual honesty and weakens the validity of a counter-argument because it fails to engage with the actual evidence presented.
1. Original Argument: 'We should divert of the city's beautification budget to improve public library internet speeds.' 2. Straw Man Response: 'My opponent wants to leave our city parks in ruins and let the flowers rot just so people can play video games at the library.' 3. Reconstruction: To fix this, the respondent must address the specific shift and the utility of internet speeds rather than characterizing the plan as a total destruction of parks.
In the logical structure , if an arguer says 'A is wrong because the person saying it is untrustworthy,' what fallacy is present?
A student argues for more vegan options in the cafeteria. The principal responds, 'If we ban all meat, the local farmers will go bankrupt.' What fallacy did the principal use?
A Red Herring is always an insult directed at the opponent.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to recall the Latin meaning of 'Ad Hominem' and the specific visual metaphor used for the 'Red Herring.'
Practice Activity
Watch a recorded debate or read an op-ed. Identify at least one instance where a speaker avoids a direct question by pivoting to a new topic (Red Herring).