irrelevant thesis fallacy

Effectiviology

Red Herring: Using Irrelevant Information as a Distraction

A red herring is a piece of information that’s meant to distract people from something important in a misleading manner. Red herrings are usually used either as a literary device, such as when an author uses a side character to divert attention from another character, or as a rhetoric technique, such as when someone responds to a question with unrelated information in order to hide their refusal to answer the original question.

When it comes to rhetoric, the use of red herrings is often referred to as the ‘red herring fallacy’. The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that’s being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction. For example, if a politician is asked how they feel about a certain policy, they might use the red herring fallacy by discussing how they feel about a related topic instead, to distract people from their failure to answer the original question.

Because red herrings are frequently used in a variety of contexts, it’s important to understand this concept. As such, in the following article you will see examples of red herrings, learn more about red herrings and about the red herring fallacy, and understand how you can properly respond to people who use red herrings in a fallacious manner.

Examples of red herrings

A simple example of a red herring is a corporate executive who’s asked “what do you think about your company’s new environmental policy?”, and responds by saying “the company is making great progress in product development that we hope will help our customers”. This is an example of a red herring in general and of the red herring fallacy in particular, since the executive responds to the question using irrelevant information, in an attempt to evade it and distract listeners.

Other examples of red herrings appear in various contexts, and we encounter them often in our everyday life. For instance, the following is an example of the use of a red herring in a simple workplace conversation:

Alex: You promised me yesterday that you were going to take care of this task. Bob: Oh yeah, that. Actually, I’m working on a really cool project now, want to see some screenshots?

Here, Alex raises a valid concern, which Bob avoids addressing by using a red herring in order to change the subject. This is therefore also an example of the red herring fallacy, since the red herring in this case is used with the intent of distracting the other person and changing the topic.

In addition, the following is an example of a red herring in a political discussion:

Interviewer: It’s been two years since your policies were implemented, and so far they have failed to reduce unemployment rates. Politician: I have been working hard ever since I came into office, and I’m happy to say that I met with many business leaders throughout the country, who all say that they’re glad to see that our hard work is paying off.

Here, the interviewer asks a valid question, and the politician responds with a red herring, in the form of a vague and seemingly related statement, which is meant to distract listeners and mislead them into believing that the politician directly answered the question. As in the case of the previous example, this is also an example of the red herring fallacy, since it involves the use of a red herring with the intention of distracting the audience in a misleading manner.

Similarly, the following is an example of a red herring in the media:

Reporter: Students are organizing a march because they want their opinions about the environment to be heard. But what about recent the recent controversy with the school board’s election procedure?

Here, the fallacious red herring is used to distract viewers from the original topic. Note how there’s superficial similarity between the red herring and the original topic, since they both relate to education; this is done to hide the use of the red herring, and make it appear as if it’s a relevant part of the original discussion.

Furthermore, the following is an example of a red herring in an advertisement:

Manufacturer: Lately, there has been a lot of criticism regarding the quality of our product. We’ve decided to have a new sale in response, so you can buy more at a lower cost!

Here, the manufacturer is being criticized for one aspect of their product (quality), and decides to distract people from the issue by running a sale, and focusing on the new, reduced price of the product instead of addressing the issue for which they were criticized. The use of the red herring in this case is also fallacious, since it’s used in a way which is meant to distract listeners.

Finally, it’s important to also note that red herrings aren’t always a part of the red herring fallacy, and can also be used in other ways, and especially as a literary device.

For instance, an example of a red herring as a literary device can be found in the Sherlock Holmes novel titled The Hound of Baskerville (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), where the storyline of the escaped convict Barrymore, who in the end turns out to be innocent, is used as a red herring in order to distract readers from the real culprit in the story. The use of a red herring in this context demonstrates how, as a literary device, the red herring can be used in order to create suspense, and make it more difficult for readers to predict the conclusion of the story.

Overall, examples of red herrings in general and of the red herring fallacy in particular appear in various contexts, such as in politics, in the media, and in regular everyday interactions. When red herrings are used, they can take various forms. For example, a red herring can be a single highly controversial topic, that’s likely to attract people’s attention, or an abstract and unclear statement, that’s likely to confuse people and cause them to forget the original discussion.

In general, the use of red herrings in argumentation and rhetoric is well summarized using the following saying:

“If you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

Note : when the red herring fallacy is used in a vague manner that doesn’t involve any specific topic, its use is sometimes referred to as pettifoging .

Understanding the red herring fallacy

As noted above, the red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that’s being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.

This fallacy is frequently used in arguments and debates on various topics , and is generally a sign that the person who’s using it doesn’t want to continue the current line of discussion, especially if they use the red herring in response to a question that they were asked. For example, the following exchange demonstrates how the red herring fallacy might be used in a political context:

Reporter: There have been accusations of corruption made against your campaign office. What do you have to say about that? Politician: I’d like to assure the public that my staff and I are always hard at work, and that we are always looking out for people’s best interests, as you can see based on the important new law educational reform that I was recently involved in.

Here, the reporter raises a concern about political corruption, and asks the politician to comment on it. Instead of doing that, the politician replies using an empty statement, in an attempt to distract listeners and shift the discussion away from the original topic.

The red herring fallacy is an informal logical fallacy , and specifically a fallacy of relevance (sometimes also referred to as a fallacy of irrelevance ), since it involves information that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In addition, the red herring fallacy is sometimes also referred to as the diversion fallacy or the digression fallacy , since it involves the intent to divert attention away from some topic by discussing something else instead.

How to respond to red herrings

The first step to responding to a fallacious red herring is to recognize that a red herring has been used. You can do this by asking yourself whether the information that’s been presented is relevant to the topic at hand, or whether it’s meant to distract you or others from what’s being discussed, often as a way to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.

Once you recognize that a red herring was used, there are several things that you can do in response:

Ask the person who used the red herring to justify it. This can be especially beneficial in cases where you’re unsure if something that was mentioned is a red herring or not. However, this can also be useful in cases where you know for certain that the other person used a red herring on purpose, because it shows your willingness to engage in a discussion, and highlights the flaws with the other person’s reasoning.
Point out the red herring and explain why it’s fallacious. Specifically, you should show that the red herring is irrelevant to the original line of discussion, and that it’s likely meant as a way to distract people.
Redirect the conversation back to the original line of discussion. You can do this in various ways, depending on the circumstances. For example, if the red herring was used to evade a question, you can repeat that question. Note that if the other person decides to keep using red herrings, sticking to the original line of discussion can lead to unproductive dialogue, where people are talking at each other instead of with each other. However, this approach can still be beneficial in some cases, such as when you want to highlight your opponent’s attempts to avoid the topic.
Accept the red herring and move on with the discussion. Though this means accepting fallacious reasoning, it is sometimes the only way to ensure that the discussion continues in a reasonable and productive manner, which makes it the best course of action in some cases.
Disengage from the discussion. Sometimes, you might realize that there is simply no point to the discussion, for example if the other person keeps shifting the topic instead of saying anything of value, in which case the best course of action might be to simply drop the discussion. Note that, if you decide to do this, it might be beneficial to state why you’re doing so, and potentially to add that you’d be open to talking again if the other person would be willing to stop using the red herrings.

You can use any combinations of these techniques that you believe is appropriate. For example, you might first ask the person who used the red herring to justify it, and then redirect the conversation back to the original line of discussion. Alternatively, you might point out the use of the red herring, and then, based on the other person’s reaction, decide whether to accept the red herring or disengage from the discussion.

To choose the best technique in your particular situation, you should take into account relevant personal and situational factors, such as the topic being discussed, the reason why the other person wishes to avoid this topic, the relationship that you have with the other person, the context in which the conversation is taking place, and the type of audience listening to the conversation (if there is one).

When doing this, it’s important to keep in mind that the use of red herrings in a conversation can sometimes be reasonable. For example, if you’re having a friendly conversation with someone and they intentionally reply to a question with an unrelated answer, it’s possible that they used a red herring because you brought up a sensitive topic that they don’t want to discuss, in which case you should accept their use of a red herring.

Overall, to respond to a red herring, you can ask the person who used it to justify it, point it out yourself and explain why it’s fallacious, redirect the conversation back to the original line of discussion, accept it and move on, or disengage from the discussion entirely. When deciding which techniques to use, you should take into account personal and situational factors, such as the topic being discussed and the reason why the other person wishes to avoid it.

Note : in cases where you’re uncertain whether someone used a red herring or not, you should implement the principle of charity . In this context, this primarily means that you should assume that the potential red herring represents relevant information in some way, as long as it’s reasonable to do so.

Additional information

Related fallacies and rhetorical techniques.

The red herring fallacy is closely associated with a fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi (meaning “ignorance of refutation”), which is sometimes also referred to as wrong conclusion , irrelevant conclusion , irrelevant thesis , or missing the point . This fallacy involves presenting an argument whose conclusion is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and especially an argument that appears to refute an opposing argument, while actually disproving something else.

The term ‘red herring fallacy’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘ignoratio elenchi’, and the red herring fallacy is sometimes considered to be a subtype of ignoratio elenchi, or to overlap with some variants of it, and especially those that are meant to serve as a diversion. Furthermore, a distinction is sometimes drawn between the red herring fallacy and ignoratio elenchi, where arguments that don’t arrive at a specific conclusion are classified as cases of the red herring fallacy, and arguments that do arrive at a specific (irrelevant) conclusion are classified as cases of ignoratio elenchi.

In addition, there are a number of other logical fallacies that are closely associated with the red herring fallacy, generally because they revolve around information that’s somehow irrelevant to the discussion. Most notably, these include the following:

The strawman fallacy , which occurs when someone distorts an opposing argument in order to make it easier to attack.
The ad hominem fallacy , which occurs when someone uses a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself.
The appeal to emotion , which occurs when a misleading argument, and particularly one that is unsound or missing factual evidence, is used with the goal of manipulating people’s emotions.

The red herring fallacy is also associated with a number of similar rhetorical techniques. These include, for example:

Equivocation , which is the deliberate use of vague or ambiguous language, with the intent of deceiving others or avoiding commitment to a specific stance.
Circumlocution , which is the act of saying something using more words than necessary, often with the intent of being vague, evasive, or misleading.
The Chewbacca defense , which is a legal strategy that involves trying to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the opposition.

Summary and conclusions

A red herring is a piece of information that’s meant to distract people from something important in a misleading manner.
Red herrings are usually used either as a literary device, such as when an author uses a side character to divert attention from another character, or as a rhetoric technique, such as when someone responds to a question with unrelated information in order to hide their refusal to answer the original question.
The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that’s being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.
To respond to a red herring, you can ask the person who used it to justify it, point it out yourself and explain why it’s fallacious, redirect the conversation back to the original line of discussion, accept it and move on, or disengage from the discussion entirely.
When deciding how to respond to a red herring, you should take into account relevant personal and situational factors, such as the topic being discussed, the reason why the other person wishes to avoid this topic, the relationship that you have with the other person, the context in which the conversation is taking place, and the type of audience listening to the conversation (if there is one).

Ignoratio Elenchi

Also called Irrelevant Conclusion, the ignoratio elenchi fallacy reaches a relevant conclusion but misses the point. Though the claims and conclusion may be logically valid, they do not address the point in question.

Example of Ignoratio Elenchi

Hippos can't be dangerous to humans, because they are so calm and look so cute. Proving an irrelevant conclusion. Also interesting to note, that of all animals, hippos cause the highest number of human deaths in Africa.
The President's policies on healthcare may be popular, but he is secretly a Nazi and should probably be investigated. The tax policy and whether or not the president is a Nazi have nothing to do with one another.

Alternative Name: Irrelevant Conclusion

Books About Logical Fallacies

A few books to help you get a real handle on logical fallacies.

Ignoratio Elenchi Extended Explanation

Ignoratio elenchi , also known as the "��irrelevant conclusion"�� fallacy, is a logical error in which an argument is made in response to a question or statement that does not address the issue at hand. This fallacy is often used in debate to deflect an opponent’s point without actually providing a valid counter-argument. Ignoratio elenchi typically takes the form of a person providing a response that is wholly unrelated to the original question or statement, and is thus considered a logical fallacy.

Ignoratio elenchi can be seen in many different forms. For example, if someone asked a question such as “What can we do to reduce emissions?”, and the response was “We should invest more in renewable energy sources”, then this would be an example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy. While investing in renewable energy sources is certainly a beneficial idea, it does not directly address the question of how to reduce emissions, and so is considered an irrelevant conclusion.

The ignoratio elenchi fallacy is often used to distract from a conversation or to avoid having to discuss a difficult or uncomfortable topic. It is also used to divert attention away from the original point, and instead focus on a different point that is more convenient or favorable to the speaker. This type of fallacy is especially common in political debates and discussions, as it allows someone to avoid having to answer a difficult question or provide a valid counter-argument.

The ignoratio elenchi fallacy is often used as a way to skirt the issue or avoid giving a real answer. It is important to recognize this fallacy when it is used, as it can lead to a conversation that does not actually address the underlying issue. By recognizing this fallacy and calling it out when it is used, we can help ensure that conversations are productive and that the original issue is properly discussed.

Philosophy Homepage » Logic Homepage » Informal Fallacies » Ignoratio Elenchi

Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion); Straw Man; Red Herring; Non Sequitur

Abstract : Ignoratio elenchi , or “ignorance of the refutation,” is broadly defined as any incorrect argument which reaches an evidentially irrelevant conclusion. Historically, the fallacy is also more narrowly defined as a counterargument to an argument or thesis which does not attempt to prove the contradictory of what was intended to be proved. In practice today, ignoratio elenchi often functions as a “catch-all” category of any fallacy of relevance not specified as one of the specific traditional fallacies of relevance. These interpretations are discussed here with a variety of specific examples and are compared to several similar overlapping fallacies, including the fallacies of non sequitur , red herring, and straw man.

The Aristotelian Dialogical and the General Traditional Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacies Explained
Ignoratio Elenchi : Outline of Main Historical Phases
Criterion of Relevance
Non Sequitur
Red Herring
Ignoratio Elenchi as a “Catch-All” Fallacy and Some Common Types
How to Identify and Analyze Ignoratio Elenchi
Effectiveness of, and How to Respond to, an Ignoratio Elenchi
Link to Ignoratio Elenchi and Related Fallacies Quiz with Answers

The Traditional Form of Ignoratio Elenchi (fallacy of irrelevancy): the fallacy which occurs whenever the conclusion of an argument is irrelevant to its premises. (The fallacy of non sequitur is often identified with this version.)

The Aristotelian Dialogical Form of Ignoratio Elenchi (mistaking the issue): a fallacy usually occurring in a dialogue or a disagreement when arguing to a conclusion not evidentially pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required and thus misses the point at issue. (The straw man fallacy is one type of this version, and the red herring fallacy is a limiting type of this version.)

The Practical Application of Ignoratio Elenchi (“limited fallacy” of irrelevancy): any fallacy of relevance which cannot be named as one of the traditional “ad …” fallacies. Ignoratio elenchi is of use as a “catch-all” category of unspecified fallacies of relevance.

People unacquainted with logic often reason well. ∴ The study of logic is not of much use.

“We must, therefore, be careful not to say that the reasoning is bad because it ends in what is false; for the reasoning may be quite good, and the mistake may be that we started wrongly. The journey has been safely performed, only we have got into the wrong train.” [3]

Monotonic Logic

The employment of ignoratio elenchi is most persuasive in extended argumentation when the train of reasoning used in evading the question makes it difficult to follow and maintain attention. Richard Whately pointed out two centuries ago, “[A] Fallacy which when stated barely, in a few sentences, would not deceive a child, may deceive half the world if diluted in a quarto volume.” [5]

(1) The traditional (dialectical argument) view : A disputant in a disagreement neglects a proper refutation which should have proved the contradictory of an opponent's thesis and instead endeavors to establish a different and unrelated point. [6] (2) The monotonic (an individual argument) view : A self-standing argument concluding something different from what was claimed to be demonstrated in an argument being under examination. [7]

“[I]f I am endeavouring to convince a person that some particular measure is for his personal interest, and I adduce arguments to prove that it contributes to the general utility … I am guilty of an ignoratio elenchi . [8]

During the covid-19 epidemic, a Proponent states it is not in his personal interest to wear a mask because it's difficult to breathe through a mask, and besides masks don't protect that well since it's been shown that virons are so small much of any viral load is inhaled through masks anyway.

The Opponent responds that wearing a mask is in the Proponent's personal interest because when exhaling much of the viral load is filtered which reduces the chances of spreading infection to others.

A Proponent argues that the wearing of a mask in a covid-19 epidemic is not in one's self-interest because all that a mask does to filter out some virons if one already has the virus. Reducing the transmission doesn't, the Proponent argues, help himself at all.

“To detect it, therefore, demands knowledge of the actual context and use, and psychological knowledge , to boot, of the point aimed at in the actual discussion. … For the difference between what are relevant and irrelevant considerations under any circumstances is never formally obvious. [emphasis original]” [10]

Many logicians consider ignoratio elenchi fallacious on the basis of a historically standard view of fallacy; viz. , such arguments involve deceptive language. [11] However, since many fallacies are not at all deceptive, this a definition is too narrow.

“One of his schoolfellows, who was tall and stout, had a coat that was too small for him; and proposed to a smaller boy, whose coat was much too big for him, to make an exchange. But the other refused; whereupon the bigger boy took away the coat by force, and left his own in exchange; and Cyrus, on being appealed to, decided in favor of the exchange. He had judged rightly which coat best fitted each boy; but this was not the real question; which was, whether it was right to take away another's property without his consent.” [12]

“To argue that a particular branch of study — [the study of mathematics] — should not be included in the curriculum of our schools, on the plea that it will never earn ‘bread and butter’ for nine-tenths of those who study it, would be a typical instance of the fallacy.” [13]

Ignoratio elenchi not only is one of Aristotle's thirteen sources of erroneous reasoning [ Soph. El. v.167a22-28] but also is a name for all of the types of fallacies of relevance [ Soph. El. vi.169a18-21]. This use of Aristotle's second characterization is modified by some contemporary logic textbooks which call for ignoratio elenchi to denote any fallacy of relevance not classifiable as one of the classical fallacies of relevance [14] and by most textbooks which discuss the term as any fallacy where the conclusion is irrelevant to the premises. (Logic textbooks which do not cover the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi , as noted above, often discuss the fallacy of non sequitur as any fallacy whose conclusion is irrelevant to its premises.)

”‘[I]gnorance of the refutation’[:] a two part distinction is usually made about ignorance of elenchus — regarding its being one specific fallacy from among thirteen, and regarding its being the generic fallacy to which all thirteen are reduced.’” [Peter of Spain, LS 7 ] [15]

Thomas Wilson, the author of the first English logic textbook (1551), and the English theologian Henry Aldrich, author of the influential logic text Artis Logicæ Compendium [16] (1691) largely based their opaque description of the fallacy on Peter of Spain's medieval logic text “ Quomondo Omnes Fallaciæ Ad Ignorantia Elenchi Reducuntur ,” in Summulæ Logicales , and their summary definitions are largely consistent with Aristotle's definition. [17]

(1) “proving something other than than which is in dispute,” (2) having “ignorance of that which ought to be proved,“ and (3) attributing “to our adversary that which is vary far from his meaning, in order to carry on the contest with greater advantage; (4) ”or to impute to him consequences which we imagine may be derived from his doctrine, although he disavows and denies them.” [18]

“ Ignoratio Elenchi , or a Mistake of the Question , that is, when something else is prov’d which has neither any necessary Connection or Inconsistency with the Thing enquired, and consequently gives no determination to the Enquiry, tho’ it may seem at first Sight to determine the Question … Disputers when they grow warm are ready to run into this Fallacy: They dress up the Opinion of their Adversary as they please, and ascribe Sentiments to him which he doth not acknowledge; and when they have with a great deal of Pomp attack’d and confounded these Images of Straw of their own making, they triumph over their Adversary as tho’ they had utterly confuted his Opinion.” [19]

“That he must directly contradict the proposition of the respondent, and not merely attack any of the arguments whereby the respondent has supported that proposition … he must contradict or oppose the very sense and attention of the proposition as the respondent has stated to, and not merely oppose the words of the thesis in any other sense; for this would … attack a proposition different from what the respondent has espoused, which is called ignoratio elenchi. ” [20]

“A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.” [21]

“[F]ew would be inclined to apply to the Fallacy in question the accusation of being … illogical reasoning.… It might be desirable therefore to lay aside the name of ‘ ignoratio elenchi, ’ but that it is so generally adopted as absolutely to require some mention be made of it.” [22]

“Whenever an argument is irrelevant to the object which a speaker or writer professes to have in view, it is called an ignoratio elenchi [23]

Contemporary description of the fallacy, has extended the use of ignoratio elenchi to include being a “catch-all” or “rag-tag” category for any fallacy of relevance which cannot be categorized under some other heading as described by luminaries I.M. Copi, Charles Hamlin, and Douglas Walton. However, Hamlin concludes that this interpretation has “no modern justification” [24] and restricts ignoratio elenchi to its traditional use of refuting the wrong point at issue spuriously taken from an opponent's argument.
Note that in formal logic, valid arguments are a property of the formal structures of statements ( e.g. , the syntax, form, or structure), rather than the material content or subject matter ( e.g. the meaning) of those statements.
A formally valid argument can turn out to be an informal fallacy whenever the argument is irrelevant to the thesis to be proved (as in ignoratio elenchi , straw man, or red herring) or whenever the premises are probatively irrelevant to the conclusion or the conclusion is topically irrelevant to the premises.
What first appears to be a fallacy of relevance from a local context ( i.e. internal to the particular characteristics of the argument itself) might turn out to be globally relevant ( i.e. an over-arching argument external to the particular characteristic issue detailed in the argument but exhibiting a logical relation to overriding issues which take precedence).

“Six justices agreed on the result, but that took four opinions outlining different rationales … that ranged from the most conservative … to the most liberal. … A similarly unexpected coalition of three justices … dissented, not necessarily because they thought the Constitution permits non-unanimous juries but because they thought the 1972 case should not be so lightly overruled.” [27]

Note that when ignoratio elenchi occurs in dialectical exchange, the argument used to refute the opponent's thesis is said to be fallacious if it does not prove that thesis false. But that does not mean that argument, considered by itself, is invalid — it only shows the wrong thesis was proved. Moreover the demonstration that a statement has not been proved does not thereby prove that the statement is false. ( Q.v , the ad ignorantiam fallacy.) [28]

Fallacies of Relevance

For this test, we will use an criterion of evidential relevance: the requirement that any evidentially relevant argument must either uphold or contravene supporting statements for the thesis at issue. In other words, the crucial question is whether the premises provide evidential support for or against the conclusion of the argument.
Consequently, if a premise of an argument provides evidential support of either a proper denial or affirmation of a thesis in dispute, then the premise is thereby relevant, and the argument cannot be classified as an ignoratio elenchi . [29] Instead, historically, if the premises are relevant and support the conclusion, the argument is called an argumentum ad rem : “the direct or ostensive proof [or disproof] of the thesis or main point in question.” [30]
Non Sequitur , Red Herring, and Straw Man Fallacies are often regarded as subtypes of ignoratio Elenchi : Ignoratio elenchi is often considered broader in focus than the non sequitur , red herring, or the straw man fallacies if we include the later added “catch-all” category as part of its definition. Unfortunately these these terms have been defined in various ways with some of fallacies used interchangeably.) [31] What follows is an attempt to clarify some of the traditional interpretations of these fallacies.

Everyone wants to be happy. Virtuous people are happy. ∴ Everyone wants to be virtuous.

“We are apt to forget the extent of our debt to antiguity and the all-pervading influence of our great heritage. … [M]uch of the symbolism that we still associate with New Year's Day is a relic of the magical influence with which that day was supposed to exert on the Nile and the welfare and prosperity of the whole community. These ideas persist although the time of New Year's Day has been changed from July to … [January]. If on January the first we form good resolutions and express the wish for good fortune, it is because sixty centuries ago the goddess Hathor … was believed to bring prosperity on New Year's Day by causing inundation, which assured the year's supply of food. She is also reputed to have effected this purpose … by brewing vast quantities of beer, with which she herself became intoxicated and lachrymose.” [35]

“Hathor: Ancient Egyptian Goddess,” source: Jeff Dahl from R.H. Wilkinson, _The_Complete_Gods_and Goddesses_of_Ancient_Egypt_ (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003).

Some logicians have characterized non sequitur as derived from, or the same as, Aristotle's fallacy of the consequent (fallacies of affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent), but this characterization is not generally accepted today. [36]

“It is important that we provide our students with a quality education.” ∴ “We should require every student to study a foreign language.” [37]

“There were no reasons given as to why studying a foreign language should be a required part of a quality education. The conclusion did not follow from the reason that was given. [38]

Subjects necessary for a quality education should be required. [Foreign language study is a subject necessary for a quality education.] ∴ Foreign language study should be required.

Both premises can be questioned , so the argument might not be considered sound, but on this analysis, the argument is not a fallacy of irrelevant reason or non sequitur . [40]
A difference between the narrow version of ignoratio elenchi when it is a valid argument but a wrong refutation and the non sequitur is that the non sequitur is always invalid. The irrelevance of a non sequitur stems from the relation of premises to conclusion, whereas the irrelevance in ignoratio elenchi lies in the mistaken conclusion established which is irrelevant to that which was supposed to be established.
Alfred Sidgwick states, “[S]o long ago as Aristotle's time it has been pointed out that every case of Non sequitur may in one sense be viewed as Ignoratio elenchi .” [41] . This course, however, follows the traditional view that non sequitur is one type of the general Aristotelian definition of ignoratio elenchi
The red herring fallacy developed outside of the logic tradition in the early 1800's and only appeared in logic textbooks fifty years ago with the development of the informal logic movement. [43] It is essentially a dialectical fallacy which is subsumable within the Aristotelian ignoratio elenchi ignorance of the refutation.

”“[T]he eminent historian who, on being confronted with various documentary facts tending to throw much doubt on his preconceived opinion as to responsibility for World War I, made this startling admission: ‘The subject is too involved, the underlying race and language antipathies are too strong, the confusion of relations in Eastern Europe too complex to make any review of printed testimony a safe basis for changing an opinion which was forged by the fires of war.’” [italics deleted]. [44]

“Texting on a cellphone while driving is not a good idea, so the mayor wants City Council to adopt an ordinance … that would ban the practice in city limits. … Texting is a distraction, but so is ejecting a CD and searching for a new one to play. So is eating while driving. Shaving. Applying makeup. Talking. Reading the plethora of flashing and stationary signs that bombard us as we drive. … [W]e're not 100 percent sold on the idea this ordinance will have the net effect desired.… [45]

Both the red herring and straw man fallacies occur commonly in the context of dialogue, discussion, and debate.
If the “red herring” presents no argument, but confines itself as a diversion to a different topic, (as in the Clinton example above), then it should be considered a rhetorical distraction rather than a fallacy, if fallacy is to be considered as an incorrect argument or a logical rule violation. [46]
As Marcin Lewiński and Steve Oswald write, “[T]he more the straw man’s content can plausibly be taken for what we believe its victim had previously uttered (and thus endorsed), the more it will be effective.” [49] The more closely the straw man's content is to the original argument, the more topically relevant it is to the original argument. If the interpretation is less charitable, the original argument is usually weaker in both topical and probative relevance since it may neglect qualifications in the original argument. [50]
The fallacy of straw man often distorts the argument being attacked by reformulating the argument using another informal fallacy. Some authors wish to distinguish ways in which the argument at issue is reformulated in terms of weaker, stronger, more charitable, or different claims based on a pragmatic redefinition of a fallacy in terms of altering the course of a dialogue rather than as we use the term here as a inferential rule-violation. [51]
Statements and phrases can be extracted from extended arguments and rearranged such that what is said is minimized, exaggerated, or altogether changed.
Often a good indicator to a straw man argument is a beginning phrase similar to “They have given the argument …” or “Our opponent would have you believe …” and the like.
Any thorough analysis of straw man argumentation needs to be from a dialogical rather than a monotonic perspective since the structure of the fallacy involves two opposing viewpoints. [53]

Rhetorical Straw Man Argument

Many (or some) people claim misconstrued standpoint x is the case.

(Misconstrued standpoint x is unqualified, extreme, partial, or dubious.)

“There are some people who say that education is the dullest of all subjects, and that everything has been said about it that can be said. I do not think it is at all a dull subject except, perhaps, to those who are the objects of it. I believe that they at the beginning almost universally vote it to be dull.” [54]

“Some people say, you ought to hate the crime and love the criminal. No, that is the language of false morality; you ought to hate the crime and the criminal, if the crime is of magnitude. If the crime is a small one, then you ought to be angry with the crime and reluctant to punish the criminal; but when there are great crimes, then you may hate them together. What! am I to love Nero? to fall in love with Heliogabalus?” [56]

In trial closing arguments (summations), debate, and rhetoric, this maneuver should be avoided since as soon as the opposition corrects a misquotation, the bearer of the straw-man position appears as dishonest or careless to the jury, judge or audience.

“We do not claim that paneling a jury normally take days, but we do say that frequently there is needless expenditure of time and money.” [57]

The ignoratio elenchi answers to the wrong point in a refutation; the straw man reconstructs a wrong argument in its rebuttal. Often in practice the distinction between ignoratio elenchi and straw man is dispensable. [58] In any case, whenever either fallacy is intentionally committed, the principle of charity is violated.

“[T]he critic needs to take into account … his or her empathic reconstruction of the proponent's position, as far as the particulars of that position can be inferred, or reasonably presumed, in the context of the dialogue.” [59]

Ngram graph showing historical frequency of ignoratio elenchi and non sequitur in Google books

The ignoratio elenchi is often persuasive in oral political argumentation. Often listeners in such a venue are easily distracted by the confidence and resolve of a speaker. The fallacy is especially effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in a crowd can often be distracting and can result in overlooking the logical import of what is said.

(1) “Is the soul immortal? It is proved, or attempted to be proved, that the soul has not always been, and therefore, it is not eternal.” [italics deleted] [64]

(2) “Those who deny the immortality of the soul on the grounds that ‘No dead man ever came back.’” [66]

“Thus, if a person should undertake to prove the existence of ghosts, and should only prove some unusual noises and appearances during the night, he would exemplify this kind of fallacy. [67]

(1) “Is the person at the bar guilty or not? … A counsel might prove the heinousness of the crime charged, the dreadful aggravations in this case, the need for making public example of such a wretch …”[italics deleted] [68]

(2)“If a sophist has to defend one who has been guilty of some serious offence, which he wishes to extenuate, though he is unable distinctly to prove that it is not such, yet if he can succeed in making the audience laugh at some causal matter, he has gained practically the same point.” [69]

“… Locke [neglects] the Cartesian opposition of Idea and Sensation altogether, been guilty of an egregious mutatio elenchi in his strictures of the Cartesian doctrine of Extension, as the essential attribute of body.” [71]

”[E]ighty-seven Port Royal nuns refused to denounce [Jansenism] in spite of its condemnation by two papal bulls. … When Archbishop Pérefixe demanded that the nuns sign the formula … the nuns [stated] such matters were “above their profession and their sex.’ … [The nuns signed] the formula with this heading[:] they ‘espouse absolutely and without reserve the faith of the Catholic Church’ [72]

“Not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes”

“No events are wholly determined by antecedent events,”

”Ilhan Omar is one of the four Democratic congresswomen of color who Mr. Trump told to ‘go back’ to their original countries. … [When] asked how he would feel if someone told the first lady, who is from Slovenia, to go back to her country [the president said] ‘Well if you go back into the four congresswomen, the things they've said about our country are terrible, what they've said about Israel are just terrible. … I don't know I can't say for sure but certainly a lot of people say they hate our country and I think it's a disgrace what they've said. … And then you have these people I think Omar I find it hard to believe but I hear Omar today put in or yesterday put in a sanctions bill against Israel and other things beyond sanctions. So when I hear that, you just can't talk about our country that way. And when people are angry at them I fully understand it.” [75]

“Maybe the two most famous opposing views on this debate [about the nature of human beings] are those of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes describes humans as ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’, needing society and rules to reign in their instincts in order to thrive; later Rousseau openly criticised him, arguing instead that man would be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the class system imposed by our society.” [76]

“When an opinion is propounded, we find people attacking it on the ground of its traditional character, its being nothing new, or its bearing, real or supposed, upon existing interests and institutions” [77]

Thus, when in a discussion one party vindicates, on the ground of general expediency, a particular instance of resistance to Government in a case of intolerable oppression, the opponent may gravely maintain that ‘we ought not to do evil that good may come:’ a proposition which of course had never been denied, the point in dispute being ‘whether resistance in this particular case were doing evil or not.’” [78]

“The theory … as expressed by Bentham, ‘the greatest good of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation’ … is converted into the execrable maxim that the good of the majority is alone to be consulted,” [79]

“Mr. William Jennings Bryan, for example, proved to thousands of persons that some of the alleged causes of evolution are not valid, but what he asserted he was proving (but failed to prove) was the falsity of the hypothesis of evolution. He inadvertently set up a straw man —he called it “Darwinism”—and demolished it completely.” [80]

“[W]ithout considering whether more and weightier objections may not lie against their own schemes … their opponents have this decided advantage over them, that they can urge with great plausibility, ‘we do not call upon you to reject at once whatever is objected to, but merely to suspend your judgment and not come to a decision as long as there are reasons on both sides:’ now since there always will be reasons on both sides, this non -decision is practically the very same thing as a decision in favour of the existing state of things; the delay of trial becomes the equivalent to an acquittal .” [italics original] [83]

Are these considerations really warranted? The objections are too many to enumerate here as they are many and weighty. Can such an argument be worthy of serious consideration? …

“Nothing is more common that to represent sects and individuals as avowing all that is esteemed by those who make the representation to be what, upon their premises, they ought to avow. … [I]t is not very uncommon to take one premise from some individuals … another from others, and to fix the logical conclusion of the two upon the whole party.” [84]

“[T]o deny the questioning attorney the privilege of having non-responsive answer stricken [from the record] would make the course of direct examination infinitely more difficult and render cross examination virtually useless. [87]

Also, to allow unsolicited testimony to stand is to increase the likelihood that a chronically nonresponsive witness will eventually say something prejudicial. [88] So likewise in dialectical argumentation or debate in the presence of an audience, irrelevant arguments can unfairly sway prejudicial opinion.

“The idea is ‘Creation’ is the exact contra dition (not of nature, but)of “Evolution.” … [T]herefore,the Bible and Science are, in regard to Evolution, in exact contradiction: therefore since the ‘Bible” is true ‘Evolution’ must be false [89]

“The 52 former hostages are seen as national heroes. I consider them survivors. A hero is one who is admired for his achievements and qualities. Therefore, the true heroes are those servicemen who volunteered for the failed rescue mission.” [90]

Rather than directly proving that the 52 former hostages are not heroes, by means of misdirection, Ms. Coyne conceals the dubious assumption that the withheld hostages cannot be admired for their achievements and qualities since they are (just) survivors. The statement that the soldiers are heroes implies nothing whatsoever as to the “achievements and qualities,” i.e. , the heroism of the survivor hostages and thus is evidentially irrelevant.

“Refutations … must … be met by examining the conclusion in light of its contradictory and seeing how the same term shall be resent in the same respect and in the same relation, manner and time.” [Arist. Soph. El. , xxvi.181a1-5 (trans. Forster)]

[ Medic ]: “The man is unfit to travel, because he has a life-threatening fever.” [ Captain :] ”The man is fit to travel, because he is a soldier.” [91]

“Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the whole ought not be …“ [92]

”There is no reference … to any words of mine … in justification of this statement. … I do wish to draw the attention … to a grave and gratuitous slander …

“Dr. Newman has by letter expresst, in the strongest terms, his denial of the meaning which I have put upon his words. It only remains, therefore, for me to express my hearty regret at having so seriously mistaken him.” [93]

“The language of Doctor Cooper plainly implies that he considered this opinion of you [ i.e. you (Burr) being a “dangerous man”], which he attributes to me, as a despicable one, but he affirms that I have expressed some other [view] still more despicable [than that], without however mentioning to whom, when or where. ’Tis evident that the phrase ‘still more despicable” admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended or how shall I annex any precise idea to language so indefinite? … [I]t cannot be reasonably expected that I shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague as that which you have adopted. I trust on more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstance and must abide the consequences.” [95]

“In the current research, people who were motivated to process a message — due to disposition or situation — were not persuaded by the technique. … Although the straw man may be effective in some cases, it may actually backfire in others. Understanding the motivation of one's audience to carefully process the message, it seems, is of critical importance. [96]

Thomas Vernon and Lowell Nissen write, “ If you base your opinion of an opposing ideology on an oversimplified and distorted version of that ideology which can easily be made to look ridiculous, then you are making the serious mistake of underestimating your opponent.” [97]
A respondent states this argument is an ignoratio elenchi since the conclusion does not universally follow. Not all swans are either black or white. The South American cygnus melancoryphus or black-necked swan has a white body with a black head. So it's neither all-black nor all-white.
The locutor points out reasons were given for the conclusion that feathers are predominately black or white, not for the conclusion that the entire plumage is black or white but not both. The locutor then might go on to clarify that in point of fact, all mature swans are mostly black or white or both black and white. No swan is entirely one color, and this actually enhances the camouflage. Even black swans have white flight colors, and white (mute) swans have a black feathers bordering its eyes and beak.
This short example illustrates that in public discourse and debate, it is especially important to state clearly the point at issue, and the speaker should clarify in advance the limitations of the claim in anticipation of typical objections.

“One after another of our leaders and heroes managed to shame himself in the past couple of decades. Americans have always been a little skeptical of politicians, but Bill Clinton (and too many others of both parties to name in recent years) invited outright contempt and disgust. Baseball players and world champion bikers admit to doping after vigorous and protracted denials. Best-selling historians and journalists are caught plagiarizing. Teachers are having sex with their underage students. Doctors are caught taking lewd photographs of their patients. The Secret Service uses prostitutes. The most decorated and esteemed military officer of our time is forced to resign as CIA director after a sex scandal. One of the most admired college football coaches in the nation is found to have kept silent about child abuse. The Catholic Church as been profoundly tarnished for failing to protect children from pedophile priests. So, for all of us, even the non-Catholics, it will be a tonic, and possibly even a little inspiring, if Pope Francis turns out to be just what he seems “a truly Godly man who lives out his faith.’” [108]

One interpretation of the argument might be just to notice the biased selection of flawed leaders and flawed heroes (without consideration of honest and ethical leaders and heroes) and conclude the argument commits a fallacy of cherry picking or biased selection.
The author might be presupposing that all of these examples point implicitly to the generalization as a subconclusion that most leaders and heroes are flawed. And then the author might be concluding from this that if the pope turns out to be an exception to that generalization, it will be unexpected. The fallacies of converse accident and accident might be plausibly argued.
But since there is no clear connection or relevance of the kinds of leaders or heroes mentioned in the premises with respect to the leader of the Catholic Church, assuming the passage is argumentative, identification of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi seems appropriate.
However, in the end, simply accepting what is said as the author's opinion and not the author's attempt to convince others of that opinion is perhaps the safest course. In which case, the “so” in the last sentence is not a conclusion indicator and the author did not intend the passage to be argumentative.

Ignoratio Elenchi , Straw Man, Red Herring, and Non Sequitur Fallacy Exercise

[M]ildly denying that a certain thing is absolutely all-important.
[B]oldly point out that something else is altogether valueless, we are met by the answer that we ‘can't expect perfection.’
[A]sserting that some doctrine lacks argument to prove its truth, we are referred to excellent reasons for believing in its utility.
[E]ndeavouring to trace the manner in which some highly developed growth ( e.g. conscience) originated, we are supposed to be refuted by a mere description of its present nature.
[D]isputing an argument, or an instance, we are supposed flatly to deny the theory in support of which there were brought forward.
[M]aking some merely tentative suggestion we are asked for definite proof.

Notes: Ignoratio Elenchi

1. The elenchus , historically, either is the contradictory of the assertion of an opponent or is the argument intended to prove the contradictory of an opponent's thesis thereby showing the thesis false.

The Ignoratio elenchi , then, describes an irrelevant argument which does not prove the contradictory of the conclusion of an opponent's argument. This “ignorance of the proper refutation“ is not necessarily a logically invalid argument — it simply does not prove the conclusion required. So the fallacy is not necessarily a logical or formal one; it is a material fallacy whose error is said to lie in the deception of “missing the point.”

A distinction is sometimes made between ignoratio elenchi and mutatio elenchi :

If the fallacy is committed unknowingly, it is an ignoratio elenchi . If the fallacy is committed on purpose, the fallacy is a “ mutatio elenchi .

See, for example, Wilhelm Traugott Krug, System der theoretischen Philosophie: Logik oder Denklehre (Königsberg: August Wilhelm Unzer, 1833), 507 and Lawrence Johnstone, A Short Introduction to the Study of Logic (London: Longmans, Green, 1887, 101.) ↩

2. Thomas Fowler, The Elements of Deductive Logic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867), 138. ↩

4. Francis Bowen, A Treatise on Logic or the Laws of Pure Thought (Cambridge, MA: Sever and Francis, 1865), 298-299. Aristotle says:

“A refutation is a contradiction of one and the same predicate, not of a name but of a thing, and not of a synonymous name but of an identical name, based on the given premisses and following necessarily from them (the original point at issue not being included) in the same respect, relation, manner and time. [ Soph. El. v.167a23-28 (trans. Forster). ↩

And from this, suggests that ignoratio elenchi might be seen as a material fallacy. [ Soph. El. v.167a35-36.] ↩

5. Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (London: J. Mawman, 1826), 151. ↩

6. Ignoratio elenchi is not only one of Aristotle's thirteen sources of erroneous reasoning [ Soph. El. v.167a22-28] but also is a name for all the types of relevance fallacies [ Soph. El. vi.169a18-21] — so modern usage corresponds somewhat with the Aristotelian origin, even though Aristotle described the fallacy as used in disputation or dialogical argumentation (as described in the text above as view (1) where two or more disputants interact).

The Port-Royal Logic defined ignoratio elenchi as

(1) “proving something other than than which is in dispute,” (2) “the ignorance of that which ought to be proved,” and (3) “to attribute to our adversary that which is vary far from his meaning, in order to carry on the contest with greater advantage; or to impute to him consequences which we imagine may be derived from his doctrine, although he disavows and denies them.”

[Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, 5th ed. The Port-Royal Logic , trans. Thomas Spencer Baynes (Edinburgh: James Gordon, 1861), 247.] Note that the third sense includes a description of the straw man fallacy which had been named and used since the early 17th century. C.f. footnote 48 below. ↩

7. Many modern non-pragma-dialectical logic texts discuss ignoratio elenchi in the context of monotonic argumentation where the structure of arguments are evaluated individually and apart from a dialogical context.

Many sub-types of the monotonic version of ignoratio elenchi are listed with short examples in the anonymous treatise An Elementary Treatise on Logic (London: J. Chapman, 1852), 67. ↩

8. Thomas Fowler, Logic: Deductive and Inductive , 149. ↩

9. Some logicians prefer to use the term “fallacy” in the formal sense only and maintain that the ignoratio elenchi is not a fallacy per se . E.g. W.D. Wilson advises:

”The words Ignoratio Elenchi mean ‘Ignorance of the Proof’ which ought to be given, and are applied equally to cases in which one is really and innocently ignorant [ i.e. , what is called elsewhere mutatio elenchi , and to those in which one chooses to ignore the real issue to be met and the Proof necessary to meet it. In this view of it, therefore, it is not a Fallacy in Logic at all, but simple a fault in sagacity or honesty, or both. It is not fault in Form nor a fallacy in the use of Forms [ i.e. a formal fallacy].”

[William Dexter Wilson, Logic, Theoretical and Practical (New York: D. Appleton, 1856), 185.]

And in diatonic logic, Douglas Walton advises before citing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi one must make sure that the opponent has completed his argument: “The question of how final the criticism of irrelevance should be taken to be, therefore, depends on whether the dialogue can be continued.” [Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach 2nd. ed. (1989 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 80.] ↩

10. F.C.S. Schiller, Formal Logic: A Scientific and Social Problem (London: Macmillan, 1912), 358-359. ↩

11. Consider Richard Whately's influential description of “fallacy”:

By a ‘Fallacy’ is meant ‘any deceptive argument or apparent-argument, whereby a man is himself convinced, — or endeavors to convince others — of something which is not really proved.’” [emphasis original]

[Richard Whately, Easy Lessons on Reasoning 2nd. ed. (Boston: James Monroe, 1845), 133.]

And C.L. Hamlin points out in his important work on fallacies:

“A fallacious argument, as almost every account from Aristotle onwards tells you, is one that seems to be valid but is not so.” [emphasis original]

[C.L. Hamlin, Fallacies (London: Methuen, 1970), 12.] ↩

12. Richard Whately, Introductory Lessons on Morals, and Christian Evidences (Cambridge: John Bartlett, 1860), 144-145. ↩

13. Adapted from Peter Coffey, The Science of Logic (London: Longmans, Green, 1912), II:315. ↩

14. Aristotle concludes that ignoratio elenchi in its general sense is coextensive with any kind of fallacy of relevance. Soph. El. viii.170a9-11 (trans. Forster):

“Thus we should know the various conditions under which false proofs occur, for there are no further conditions under which they could occur, but they will always result from the above causes [ i.e. , reasons].”

As least this is what Erik Krabbe concludes with this (uncredited) translation of that passage:

“Thus we may know in how many ways fallacies come about. For there can be no more ways; they all will come about in the ways mentioned.

“Fallacies” here are defined as mistaken sophistical refutations (dialectical fallacies), by which Krabbe concludes Aristotle reduces “all fallacies to ignoratio elenchi .” [Erik C.W. Krabbe, “ Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations ,” Topoi 31 no. 2 (April, 2012), 245. doi: 10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0 ↩

15. Brian P. Copenhaver with Calvin Normore and Terence Parsons, Peter of Spain: Summaries of Logic, Text, Translation, Introduction, Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 61. doi: 10.1093/actrade/9780199669585.book.1 ↩

16. Henry Aldrich, A Compendium of Logic 2nd ed. (London, 1756), 31. Aldrich states:

“The Fallacy Ignorationis Elenchi . An Elenchus is, A Syllogism that confutes the Opponent. Therefore he falls into this Fallacy, who thinks he confutes his Opponent, without observing the Rules of Contradiction.”

It's important to see that a claimed valid refutation which concludes with a contrary would be an ignoratio elenchi since it is not a contradictory. ( Contraries cannot both be true but can both be false.) ↩

17. Thomas Wilson (Thomas Vuilson), The Rule of Reason, Conteinyng the Arte of Logique Set Forth in Englishe (London: Richard Grafton, printer to the Kynges Maiestie), n.p. Henry Aldrich, A Compendium of Logic , 31. ↩

18. Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, The Port-Royal Logic trans. Thomas Spencer Baynes, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: James Gordon, 1861), 247. Note that the third sense includes a description of the straw man fallacy had been named and used since the early 17th century. ↩

19. Isaac Watts, Logick; or, the Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry after Truth 3rd. corrected ed. (London: Printed for John Clark et al., 1729), 314-315. ↩

20. Isaac Watts, The Improvement of the Mind;, or A Supplement to the Art of Logic (London: J. Abraham, 1801), 99-100. ↩

21. George H. Smith, Logic or the Analytic of Explicit Reasoning (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1901), 143-144.

Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Ralph H. Johnson, Christian Plantin, Charles A. Willard, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments (Routledge, 2013), 284. ↩

22. Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (London: J. Mawman, 1826), 141-142. ↩

23. Thomas Fowler, The Elements of Deductive Logic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867), 138. ↩

24. Hamlin, Fallacies , 31. ↩

25. E.g. , In symbolic logic the formal argument:

p ∴ p ∨ q

is a valid argument form. So, therefore, an argument such as:

The cat is on the mat. ∴ The cat is on the mat or the earth is flat.

is valid formally in that if the premise is true, the conclusion is necessarily true as well.

“The earth is flat” is part of the conclusion, but statement is irrelevant to the statement “The cat is on the mat.” And although “The cat is on the mat” entails that “The cat is on the mat,” to argue this is would be petitio principii (the fallacy of circular argument). Formal logic provides no basis for topical relevance among statements.

Relevance logics have been developed with a view to avoid these failures of relevance. See, for example, Edwin Mares, “ Relevance Logic ,”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. Edward N. Zalta (Spring 2014 Edition). Also, see John Woods, Andrew Irvine, and Douglas Walton, “Non-Classical Propositional Logics,” Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies 2nd. ed. (Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004), 148-175. ↩

26. Douglas Walton defines “probative relevance” as a statement playing some part in proving or disproving another statement. [Douglas Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach 2nd. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 203.] Trudy Govier defines positive and negative relevance as if and only if the truth of one statement counts in favor of, or against, another statement. [Trudy Govier, A Practical Study of Argument 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010), 149.] Material evidential relevance, probative relevance, and positive and negative relevance are similar concepts with some differences in applications.

W.R. Boyce Gibson, following an insight articulated by G.F. Stout, describes argumentative relevance in this manner:

“[The natural framework of] a logical whole, the object that can satisfy a given logical interest … is defined by the limitations of the interest [and purpose]. What in respect of that interest is extra-marginal is logically irrelevant … … [W]hether that [reference to] context be formal or real, is always conceived as limited by an involved reference to purpose or interest …

27. Ruth Marcus, “An Ominous Sign for Roe vs. Wade,” Index-Journal 95 no. 345 (April 28, 2020), 8A. ↩

28. G.K. Chesterton's analogy illustrates the point that an unproved statement is not necessarily a false statement:

“A false ghost disproves the reality of ghosts exactly as much as a forged banknote disproves the existence of the Bank of England …”

[Gilbert K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (London: John Lane, 1909), 281-282.] ↩

29. Douglas N. Walton, Topical Relevance in Argumentation , 48. Also, adapting Douglas N. Walton and Fabrizio Macagno, “ Profiles for Dialogue for Relevance ,” Informal Logic (2016), 527. doi: 0.22329/il.v36i4 ↩

30. 11. Noah K. Davis, The Theory of Thought: A Treatise on Deductive Logic (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1894), 139. ↩

31. Many current logic textbooks show no consistent use of these terms. Many of their traditional uses have merged.

Douglas N. Walton, for example, uses ignoratio elenchi and red herring interchangeably in an early paper “ Ignoratio Elenchi: The Red Herring Fallacy, ” Informal Logic 2 no. 3 (January, 1979), 3-7. doi: 10.22329/il.v2i3.2823

Diane Halpern uses irrelevant reasons and non sequitur interchangeably. Diane F. Halpern, Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning 5th ed. (New York: Psychology Press, 2014), 274. doi: 10.4324/9781315885278

I.M. Copi et al. states ignoratio elenchi and non sequitur “similar breadth and flexibility.” [Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic 13 ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2009), 134]. but this text stipulates a more restricted use of ignoratio elenchi . ↩

32. Originally with Aristotle, non sequitur was identified with the “fallacy of the consequent” (or sometimes termed the “fallacy of the false consequent”) which Aristotle narrowly defined as fallacies related to the hypothetical syllogism ( i.e. , fallacies such as invalid conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or conversion of a hypothetical statement as related to the fallacy of affirming the consequent or the fallacy of denying the antecedent). [ Vide Arist. Soph. El. v.167b1-5 (trans. Forster)].

In the 18th century logicians employed the definition of the fallacy to syllogistic reasoning whenever the conclusion did not logically follow from the premises. [Adam L. Jones, Logic, Inductive and Deductive: An Introduction to Scientific Method (New York: Henry Holt, 1909), 174.] Today, non sequitur is used to describe any invalid argument whose conclusion is irrelevant to its premises as in this characterization by Roy Wood Sellars: a non sequitur is defined as “a conclusion which does not follow the premises.” [Roy Wood Sellars, The Essentials of Logic (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1917), 157.]

On this definition of non sequitur , Arthur Ernest Davies points out:

Whenever, for any reason, a conclusion does not follow from the assigned premises, we have, in the literal sense of the term, a Non Sequitur . When used in this sense to include all the errors in reasoning which lead to erroneous conclusions, the term is generic, and must be understood as synonymous with ‘fallacy.’”

[Arthur Ernest Davies, A Text-Book of Logic (Columbus, OH: R.B. Adams, 1915), 576, 578.]

Historically, non sequitur has been defined in a baffling assortment of definitions:

(1) Some logicians have viewed the narrow form of the Aristotelian ignoratio elenchi ( i.e. ignoring of the real point to be proved) as a subfallacy of non sequitur . [ Vide , Henry B. Smith, How the Mind Falls into Error: A Brief Treatment of Fallacies (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1923), 47.]

However, including ignoratio elenchi as one type of non sequitur , mistakenly ignores the fact that some ignoratio elenchi arguments are designated fallacious because they do not prove the conclusion intended, even though they do validly prove the wrong conclusion. In this sense, the “fallaciousness” of this type of ignoratio elenchi resides in its deceptiveness rather than in the fact of the conclusion not following from its premises.

(2) More often the opposite relation of the two fallacies is held: the non sequitur , is usually classified as one kind of ignoratio elenchi . Alfred Sidgwick states:

“[S]o long ago as Aristotle's time it has been pointed out that every case of Non sequitur may in one sense be viewed as Ignoratio elenchi ; while it is quite clear that the first and second of the above heads are, strictly speaking, cases of ‘Untruth implied.””

[Alfred Sidgwick, A View of Logic from the Practical Side (New York: De. Appleton, 1884), 178-179.] Douglas Walton at one time also held this view as well. [Douglas N. Walton, “Which of the Fallacies are Fallacies of Relevance?” Argumentation (1992), 237-250. doi: 10.1007/BF00154328 ] In addition, C.L. Hamlin states with respect to ignoratio elenchi , “[A]lmost any fallacy at all might be put under this heading.” [ Fallacies , 41.]

Steven Barbone, in effect, continues this view as described here:

“ [I]gnoratio elenchi (“ ignorance of the proof”) fallacy, is, in effect, the parent of all other fallacies since every fallacy yields a conclusion that even it be true is not related — that is, is irrelevant — to the premises of the argument…”

[Steven Barbone, “Irrelevant Conclusion,” in Bad Arguments, (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2019), 172.] doi: 10.1002/9781119165811.ch33 ]

(3) I.M. Copi's initial textbook of logic, together with successive editions with co-authors takes a unique view of ignoratio elenchi :

“We reserve this name for those fallacies of irrelevance that do not fit into other categories.”

These editions equate the extension of the term ignoratio elenchi with that of non sequitur . [ E.g. , Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic 13 ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2009), 134.] But the implication of this equivalence seems to be that ignoratio elenchi is taken in the equivocal sense of any fallacy of relevance as well as a “catch-all” category of all fallacies of relevance not more specifically named, such as the fallacies tradtionally labelled “ad …”

(4) As late as the early 20th century, the non sequitur was more narrowly identified with Aristotle's fallacy of the consequent, i.e. for any fallacy involving a hypothetical syllogism including the fallacy of affirming the consequent or the fallacy of denying the antecedent). [A.E. Davies, A Text-Book of Logic (Columbus, OH: R.G. Adams, 1915), 578.]

(5) Some logicians describe non sequitur as a “fallacy of the consequent” meaning in this case the conclusion includes irrelevant information not present in the premises, whereas ignoratio elenchi , as irrelevant conclusion, includes irrelevant material in the premise which proves the wrong conclusion. [Sam Blows, Cusack's Principles of Logic (London: City of London, 1899), 163, 166; and William J. Taylor, Elementary Logic (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 186; among others.] However, this description rests on a misinterpretation of Aristotle's fallacy of the consequent. Vide Arist. Soph. El. v.167b1-5 (trans. Forster).

(6) Other logicians see version (5) as two aspects of the same fallacy: the first from the origin of the fallacy of getting the wrong issue in the premises ( ignoratio elenchi in the narrow sense of mistaking the issue) and the second from the outcome of the fallacy ( non sequitur or irrelevant conclusion). For example, George Smith, seemingly taking an early pragma-dialectical approach, concludes from the rule that premises must correspond to the thesis at issue, that …

“The fallacy resulting from a violation of this rule … will necessarily involve a departure from the thesis at issue, both in the premises and in the conclusion. With regard to the premises, it is called the fallacy of Mistaking the Issue ; with regard to the conclusion, that of Irrelevant Conclusion ; and in either case, Ignoratio Elenchi ”

[George H. Smith, Logic or the Analytic of Explicit Reasoning (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1901), 143-144.] This point of view is retained in Alburey Castell's very popular logic textbook in the mid-20th century where he suggests, “They are in a sense convex and concave of the same situation.” [ A College Logic (New York: Macmillan, 1935), 22.] ↩

33. William Stanley Jevons, Elementary Lessons in Logic (London: Macmillan, 1879), 181. ↩

34. James H. Hyslop, The Elements of Logic: Theoretical and Practical (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1892), 253. ↩

35. G. Elliot Smith, In the Beginning; The Origin of Civilization (London: G. Howe, 1928), 12. ↩

36. My guess is that the confusion arises since both fallacies have been defined as occurring whenever a reason is used, when it is not a reason or when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. [Arist. Soph. El. vi.168b23-30]. A good example of a fallacy of the consequent is as follows:

“If the farmers will O rganize, they have a good C hance of keeping the price supports. But ( ~O ) whoever heard of farmers really getting together on anything?”

Adapted from W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit Argument (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1959), 156.] So the implicit conclusion is “Farmers don't have a good chance of keeping price supports” but it doesn't logically follow since the government might have its own reasons to continue the supports whether or not the farmer's organize. Note that the structure of the argument is the fallacy of denying the antecedent:

If O then C ~O ∴ ~C

Many logicians since the beginning of the 19th century equate the fallacy of the consequent with any argument whose conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. However, this interpretation would also omit those cases of ignoratio elenchi which are valid but prove a different conclusion from that required as a refutation. ↩

37. Diane F. Halpern, Thought and Knowledge: Introduction to Critical Thinking 5th ed. (New York: Psychology Press, 2014), 274. doi:10.4324/9781315885278 ↩

38. Halpern, Thought and Knowledge , 274. In her defense, it is possible that she acknowledges foreign language study (or better, modern language study) is a subject important for a quality education, but not all subjects important for a quality education can be required because of, e.g. . undergraduate time constraints, etc.

Also, it should be noted in passages like this one, it is important not to commit the straw man fallacy when supplying missing premises for an opponent in critical discussions. Douglas Watson explains why in this short passage:

“When attributing enthymemes, especially to an opponent, it can be very tempting to exaggerate the opponent's position by filling in a missing premise of the form ‘Generally things that have property F also have property G , subject to exceptions’ with an absolute, or strict generalization, of the form ‘All things that have property F also have property G , without exception.’ This kind of move is a form of the secundum quid fallacy,meaning that qualifications have been ignored. But the same move may also be a case of the straw man fallacy …”

Douglas Walton, “ The Straw Man Fallacy ,” in Logic and Argumentation ed. Johan van Bentham, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Frank Veltman (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1996), 122. ↩

39. Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 30-31. Deirdre Wilson's and Dan Sperber's development of Grice's Communicative Principle of Relevance is applicable to argumentation as well: “Every utterance conveys a presumption of its own optimal relevance.” Meaning and Relevance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 282.

The point of view taken in these notes follows Alfred Sidgwick: “[T]he asserter is, in every case, the arbiter of what he means to say.” [ The Practical Side of Logic , (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1883), 193.]

F.C.S. Schiller cautions, with respect to apparent non sequitur :

“[It really is not safe to infer that the logical thread of connexion has been severed because you cannot trace any verbal identity between the terms in the conclusion and in the premises. The apparent non sequitur may be merely due to an elliptical statement on the part of the reasoner, or even to a use of language you do not understand; actual inquiry may show that there is a good connexion lurking in his mind, though it does not appear on the face of his argument.” (London: Macmillan, 1912), 361-362.

[F.C.S. Schiller, Formal Logic , 361.] ↩

40. What the author might be arguing is the implicit (minor) premise is the real question at issue; therefore, the enthymeme would be a petitio principii . A similar objection regarding enthymemes of this type is made by various authors including James H. Hyslop, [ The Elements of Logic: Theoretical and Practical (C. Scribner's Sons, 1892), 254-255] and David Hitchcock, “ Enthymematic Arguments ,” Informal Logic 7 no. 2 & 3 (Spring & Fall, 1985), 87.]

However, this tactic is to ignore Grice's principle of communication as well as to ignore that the objector has the burden of proof to show the enthymeme invalid: i.e. to disprove the implicit premise.

dictum de omni et nillo

There are many other different reasons logicians have given for making regarded implicit assumptions explicit even though the principle of charity is not useful for many enthymemes derived from probabilities and signs [ c.f. Arist. Rh. I.2.1357a14-18].

Ignoratio elenchi can occur when the principle of charity is disregarded. For example, Viśwanátha states that when the belief of an individual who asserts “I am eternal” is taken literally so that the objection, “How canst thou be eternal that was born of so and so?[emphasis original]” The objector well knows the individual is speaking of an internal spirit within him, and not his body, ”the temporary-prison house of his soul.” The ignoratio elenchi occurs since the question “does not assail that which the speaker meant to say. [Viśwanátha, The Aphorisms of the Nyáya Philosophy by Gautama , trans. J. R. Ballantyne, Sanskrit and English (Allahabad: Presbyterian Mission Press, 1854), IV: 45-46.]

For a useful outline of many approaches for analysis of enthymematic arguments see David Hitchcock, “Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?,” Informal Logic 12 Argumentation (1998), 15-37. ↩

41. Alfred Sidgwick, Fallacies: A View of Logic from the Practical Side (New York: D. Appleton, 1884), 179. Sidgwick has in mind Arist. Soph. El. VI. But Sidgwick's judgment is based on the claim in where Aristotle states “Thus we should know the various conditions under which false proofs occur, for there are no further conditions under which they could occur, but they will always result from the above causes [reasons].” Soph. El. VIII 170a9-11 (trans. Forster). Q.v , footnote 14 for Erik Krabbe's translation of this passage. ↩

42. The red herring fallacy seems to have originated from Nicholas Cox's description of training hunting dogs to follow a scent of a red herring [Nicholas Cox, The Gentleman's Recreation: Or, a Treatise Giving the Best Directions for Hunting … (London: J.C. and F.C., 65.] and was metaphorically adapted as a fallacy by William Cobbett in his political pamphlets in the early 19th century. See for example William Cobbett, “ Continental War ,” Cobbett's Weekly Political Register XI no. 7 (February 14, 1807), (London: Cox and Baylis), 233. ↩

43. Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000), 115. doi: 10.4324/9781410606174

Non sequitur is often identified with “irrelevant conclusion” which, in turn is often identified with ignoratio elenchi . S. Morris Engel equates red herring with “ignoring the issues“ or “irrelevant conclusion.” [S. Morris Engel, Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap corrected (1984 New York: Dover, 1994), 119. (Orig. published as The Language Trap by Prentice-Hall.)] In our course, examples of these fallacies sometimes overlap but the fallacies are not equivalent. ↩

44. George A. Lundberg, Social Research: A Study in Methods of Gathering Data (New York: Longmans, Green, 1942), 47. ↩

45. Editor, “ Education, Responsibility More Beneficial than Law,” Index-Journal 94 no. 132 (September 9, 2012), 8A. ↩

46. Textbooks differ on this point. E.g. , in Douglas Walton's 2004 classification system, a red herring fallacy has no conclusion, but he terms it as a fallacy either of “diversionary irrelevance” or “petifogging irrelevance” [ Classification of Fallacies of Relevance ,” Informal Logic 24 no. 1 (January 2004)77. doi: 10.22329/il.v24i1.2133 ] See also Douglas N. Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004), 243. doi: 10.4324/9781410609441 The “fallacy” involved is the deception “to cover up for his failure to move his argument along a line that would make it probatively useful with respect to the goal of a dialogue.” [ Relevance in Argumentation , 244]. So this is a fallacy in the sense of a violation of a rule for critical discussion. Basing the classification of logical fallacies on a discrimination of attributed intentional aims of the disputants seems intractably subjective. It's difficult to see how Walton's explication of red herring is compatible with his equivalence of “fallacy” and “incorrect argument” [“Classification,” 101]. Certainly, some instances of introducing a wholly different perspective, providing an extended instructive example, constructing a colorful analogy, providing a bit of humor, evoking an electrifying image, provision of a welcome interlude, and even excessive analysis or “logic chopping” all can raise debatable questions of relevance and values of probative weight by disputants without fallacy commission. But also, on the other hand, Tracy Bowell and Gary Kemp describe a “smokescreen tactic” without a conclusion as a “rhetorical ploy,” not a fallacy [ Critical Thinking (London: Routledge Taylor and Francis, 2009), 49-50.] doi: 10.4324/9780203874134 ↩

47. Christopher W. Tindale, Fallacies and Argument Appraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 22. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511806544 ↩

48. Douglas N. Walton, “ The Straw Man Fallacy ,” in Logic and Argumentation ed. Johan van Bentham, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Frank Veltman (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1996), 116.

Two points should be mentioned concerning this paper. (1) Douglas Walton's pragmatic theory of fallacy distinguishes straw man from ignoratio elenchi in this manner:

“[The straw man fallacy] is different from ignoratio elenchi because in this fallacy, it is specifically the thesis of the other (and not her whole position, or set of commitments as a whole) that is misrepresented or gotten wrong.” [Walton, “ The Straw Man Fallacy ,“ 115.]

Walton points out that this distinction cannot be made in the monotonic logic of current textbooks [Douglas Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (New York: Routledge, 2003), 24-25]. His distinction is consistent with the characterization of straw man/person by Ralph H. Johnson and J.Anthony Blair in Logical Self-Defense U.S. Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 93-94. Nevertheless, Johnson and Blair also characterize mistaking a specific claim in an opponent's standpoint as the fallacy of straw person ( i.e., straw man). And Walton (with Fabrizio Macagno) does not seem to continue the distinction later [in Fabrizio Macagno and Douglas Walton, Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation (Cham, CH: Springer International, 2017), xiii, 111, 139] where a “rebuttal” straw man distorts a claim or the argument.

We also do not follow the distinction between a position, a view, a thesis, and so forth as distinguishing between ignoratio elenchi and straw person since the historical literature and much of the contemporary literature does not do so.

For example, Antone Arnauld in his Logic; or, The Art of Thinking, The Port-Royal Logic , 1685) describes ignoratio elenchi is terms of what Walton, Johnson, Blair, and others characterize as straw man:

“ To prove another thing than that which is in question. This Sophism is call'd by Aristotle . Ignoratio Elenchi : The ignorance of that which is to be prov'd against the Opponent. For in dispute we grow Hot, when many times we do not understand one another. This is a common vice in the disputes among men. Through passion, or falshood [sic] we attribute that to the Opponent, which is remote from his thoughts, to combat him with more advantage: or we tax him with consequences which we think we can draw from his Doctrine, which he disavows and denies.” Antoine Arnauld with Pierre Nicole, Logic; or, The Art of Thinking trans. by several hands (London: T.B. for H. Sawbridge, 1685), Pt. III: 90-91.

Defining a straw man argument as one type of ignoratio elenchi appears a prudent solution to these confusions of definitions. Indeed, Walton, when discussing Stuart Chase's and Augustus De Morgan's view of straw man, admits the misrepresentation of “subpositions” as examples of this fallacy:

“The straw man tactic is essentially to take some small part of an arguer's position, and then treat it as if that represented his larger position.” [“ The Straw Man ,” 118-119.]

Walton is well aware that recent logicians use the straw man fallacy in the sense of ignoratio elenchi . [ E.g. , Walton, Relevance in Argumentation 23, 51, 84], and more recently he and Fabrizio Macagno point to the characterization of straw man fallacy in a later revision of the definition of ignoration elenchi quoted above from the Port-Royal Logic with apparent approval [ Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation: The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting Series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2017), xiii. The authors allow for the straw man argument in computer modelling to cover both arguments that attack a position as well as a conclusion in that position (p. 174).

(2) And Walton suggests that the straw man argument was first included in a logic textbook with Stuart Chase's 1956 Guides to Straight Thinking [(also locatable here: Internet Archive with free registration)(New York: Harper, 1956), 40-41.]. [Walton, “ The Straw Man Fallacy ,“ 123.]

Neither of the claims is historically accurate. From the 16th century on, the phrase “man of straw” described a misrepresented opponent's argument setup for refutation. Awareness of this mode of argumentation dates from Aristotle's discussions of types of objections in argumentation [ Rh. II.25.3.1402b 6; Soph. El. xiv.174b 21-23; Top. I.xiv.105b 6-7; Top. VIII.ix.159b 30-40]. The early use of the phrase “man of straw” described easily refuted put-up arguments from the early 17th century on; here are several examples:

">(1) “In the fourth argument … whiles hee fighteth with an idle fancie, which like a man of staw hee hath set up against himselfe, hee yeeldeth …to the truth.” [George Dovvname [Downame], “ A Treatise of Ivstification [Justification] ,” (London, F. Kyngston, 1633), 305. (A text written before the introduction of standardized English spelling).]

">(2) “ Disputers … dress up the opinion of their adversary …[with] images of straw.” [Isaac Watts, Logick; or, The Right Use of Reason new ed.(London: C. Whittingham, 1801), 284.]

">(3) “Your adversary … dressed up his own man of straw … which he calls yours, cudgeled in effigy.” [S.E. Parker, Logic or the Art of Reasoning Simplified (Philadelphia: Robert Davis, 1837), 286.]

">(4) “Sometimes an argument is stated incorrectly … which is popularly called — setting up a man of straw, and then knocking him down.” (emphasis mine). [John Daniel Morell, Handbook of Logic: Adapted Especially for the Use of Schools (London: Robert Theobald, 1855), 60-61.] Cf. , also additional historical examples of the use and definitions of straw man from traditional logic textbooks cited in footnote 58 below. ↩

49. Marcin Lewinski and Steve Oswald, “ When and How Do We Deal with Straw Men? A Normative and Cognitive Pragmatic Account ,” Journal of Pragmatics 58 Part B (December 2013), 167. ↩

50. E.g. , Scott Aikin and John Casey, “ Don't Feed the Trolls: Straw Men and Iron Men ,” in Virtues of Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (May, 2013), 1-10. (In this paper, the “arguments” are mostly more-or-less disagreements rather than arguments ( i.e. , a group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow logically from the others). ↩

51. For instance, Fabrizio Macagno and Douglas Walton, list types of straw men in terms of ambiguity, misquotation, rhetorical, distortion, and so forth. Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation: The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, Vol. 14 (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018), 147. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4

Robert Talisse and Scott F. Aiken want to distinguish a respondent's misrepresentation version of a whole position from a misrepresentation by a selection of weaker claims [“ Two Forms of the Straw Man ,” Argumentation 20 no. 3(November, 2006), 345-352. doi: 10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8 ], but historically both “versions” have been included in the definition of the fallacy. [ Vide , Alex C. michalos, Improving Your Reasoning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1970), 63.] In other papers they have distinguished straw men, weak men, hollow men, iron men, and so forth. Such a proliferation of fallacies seems unnecessary given the traditional treatment of ignoration elenchi in the 19th century which included the notion of straw man argumentation.. ↩

52. Douglas Walton and Fabrizio Macagno, “ Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations ,” Informal Logic 31 no. 1 (March, 2011), 27-28. doi: 10.22329/il.v31i1.657 ↩

53. Douglas Walton, ”The Straw Man Fallacy“ in Methods of Argumentation (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013), 250. Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair emphasize that the scheme of the straw-man fallacy is often in an adversarial context. [Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair, Logical Self-Defense U.S. Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 93-94.] ↩

54. Mandell Creighton, Thoughts on Education ed. Louise Creighton (London: Longmans, Green, 1902), 69. ↩

55. E.g. Thomas S. Vernon and Lowell A. Nissen's limpid text Reflective Thinking: Fundamentals of Logic (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1968), 160; and Douglas N. Walton, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation (Albany NY: State University of New York, 1992), 75-80. Secundum quid occurs when there is a confusion between using a word or phrase in a relative, limited, or qualified sense and using it in an absolute, unlimited, and an unqualified sense. In the pragma-dialectical theory, secundum quid is one way to violate the standpoint rule:

“A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party. [capital letters omitted]”

The misrepresentation occurs by oversimplifying or exaggerating the point at issue. [Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002), 118. ↩

56. Edmund Burke, “ Speeches in the Impeachment of Warren Hastings ,” in The Writings & Speeches of Edmund Burke vol. XII (New York: J.F. Taylor, 1901), 277. ↩

57. Carroll Pollock Lahman, Debate Coaching (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1930), 126. ↩

58. Often, in the history of logic the terms “straw man,” “man of straw,”, or ”images of straw” are used to explain the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi . C.f. , the following examples:

Isaac Watts, Logick or The Right Use of Reason (London: Emanuel Matthews, 1733), 314.

S.E. Parker, Logic or the Art of Reasoning Simplified (Philadelphia: Robert Davis, 1837), 285-286.

John Daniel Morell, Handbook of Logic: Adapted Especially for the Use of Schools (London: Robert Theobald, 1855), 60-61.

James R. Boyd, Elements of Logic: On the Basis of Lectures by William Barron (New York: A.S. Barnes, 1856), 149-150.

James Welton, Groundwork of Logic (London: W.B. Clive, 1917), 109-110. ↩

59. Walton, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation , 170. Walton speaks of the “right of empathic conjecture” of what a position is taken to be. ↩

60. The word “empathy” was coined from the Germanhttps://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo1.ark:/13960/t8bg37h2n?urlappend=%3Bseq=37 word “Einfühlung” by Edward N. Titchener in Lectures on the Experimental Psychology of the Thought-Processes (New York: Macmillan, 1909), 21. He used to term to call attention to the fact that visual images have a kind of kinaesthetic accompaniment when thought independently experience. In the context of Walton's use of the principle of empathy, it is what Arnold Goldberg called a “second-person perspective”:

“ … the experience that you are having as graspable by another by way of an inner comparison or vicarious introspection. … essentially derived from the eye of the empathizer It is a judgment.”

[Arnold Goldberg, “Between Empathy and Judgment,” Being of Two Minds: The Vertical Split in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy (London: Analytic Press, 1999), 158.]

Lou Agosta writes in a thorough explication of the use of the term “empathy” that the relevant meaning of “Einfühlung” is “feeling one's way into.” [Lou Agosta, “ Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics ,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (accessed 07.04.2020).] ↩

61. For this reason, few examples of ignoratio elenchi are provided in the exercises, quizzes, and tests on this website. ignoratio elenchi should be cited only if the fallacy in question is not properly classifiable as one of the more specific fallacies of relevance. ↩

62. W. Stanley Jevons is one of the few logicians who point this out; he writes:

“[I]t would be difficult to adduce concise examples, because the fallacy usually occurs in the course of long harangues, where the multitude of words and figures leaves room for confusion of thought and forgetfulness.“

[W. Stanley Jevons, The Elements of Logic ed. David J. Hill (New York: Sheldon, 1883), 172.] ↩

63. Douglas Walton's Relevance in Argumentation (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004) is a notable exception to this generalization. Q.v. ; esp. q.v. his Chapter 3: “Textbook Treatments of Irrelevance.” ↩

64. John Veitch, Institutes of Logic (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1885), 542. ↩

65. “Eternal, n.1, 3a,” Oxford English Dictionary 2nd. ed on CD-ROM, v. 4.0 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2009. ↩

66. Celestine N. Bittle, The Science of Correct Thinking (New York: Bruce, 1934), 330. ↩

67. Henry N. Day, Elements of Logic (New York: C. Scribner, 1867), 194. (From Krug, Logik , 507.) ↩

68. Veitch, Institutes , 542. ↩

69. Horne Tooke quoted in George Bentham, Outline of a New System of Logic (Hunt and Clarke, 1827), 279. ↩

70. George Bentham, Outline of a New System , 280. ↩

71. Thomas Reid, The Works of Thomas Reid 7th ed. (Edinburgh: Maclachlan and Stewart, 1872), II: 835. ↩

72. Daniella Kostroun, “ A Formula for Disobedience: Jansenism, Gender, and the Feminist Paradox ,” 75 no. 3 (September 2003), passim 487-491. doi: 10.1086/380236 ↩

73. The Port Royal nun example is suggested in Lawrence Johnstone, A Short Introduction to the Study of Logic (London: Longmans, Green, 1887), 102. ↩

74. With regard to practical reasoning, even the weighted listing of pros and cons in decision-making has its limitations. See, for example, the evaluation of Benjamin Franklin's method by David Hitchcock, On Reasoning and Argument (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017), 280-283. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3 ↩

75. Weijia Jiang, “ Trump Took Heat from Melania and Ivanka Over Racist Chants at Rally ,” CBS Evening News (July 19, 2019) CBS Interactive Inc. ↩

76. Tom Aglietti, “ Are We Born Good or Evil? (Haughty or Nice) ,” BBC Earth n.d. Hobbes' view is somewhat misrepresented here — the quoted description ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’ in this passage describes that of “human life” without law, not human nature. [Thomas Hobbes, Levithan Or, The Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill (London: Andrew Crooke, 1651), 62. ↩

77. Veitch, Institutes , 544. ↩

78. Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (London: J. Mawman, 1826), 190. ↩

79. George H. Smith, Logic (New York: Putnam, 1901), 195. ↩

80. Chilton Rowlette Bush, Editorial Thinking and Writing: A Textbook with Exercises (New York: D. Appleton, 1932), 183. ↩

81. Robert Talisse and Scott F. Aikin, “ Two Forms of the Straw Man ,” Argumentation 20 no. 3 (November, 2006), 345-352. doi: 10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8 ↩

82. Francis Bacon, A Fragment of the Colours of Good and Evil in The Works of Francis Bacon (London: A. Millar, 1765), I:438. ↩

83. Whately, Logic , 198-199. ↩

84. Augustus De Morgan, Formal Logic: or, the Calculus of Inference (Taylor and Walton, 1847), 281. ↩

85. Walton, “ Straw Man Fallacy ,” Logic and Argumentation , 119. ↩

86. “A nonresponsive answer is an answer given by a witness upon examination in a trial or in the taking of a deposition which evades or does not relate to the question posed.” [Anon., “ Nonresponsive Answer and Legal Definition ,” US Legal , (September 12, 2019.] ↩

87. United States v. Schneiderman 106 F. Supp. 892 – 905 Dist. Court, S.D. California, 1952). ↩

88. Steven C. Day, “ Getting More Than You Asked For: The Nonresponsive Answer ,” Litigation 14 no. 1 (Fall, 1987), 19. ↩

89. 4. Argument attributed to John L. Girardeau in Jas. L. Martin,“ Anti-Evolution: Girardeau versus Woodrow ,” A New Theory of the Origin of Species I: 74. ↩

90. Irene Coyne, “Letters” Time 117 no. 7 (February 16, 1981), 4. The argument that Ms. Coyne probably had in mind is reflected in the following valid argument:

All persons admired for their achievements and qualities are heroes. All failed servicemen-rescuers are persons admired for their achievements and qualities. All failed servicemen-rescuers are heroes. All persons admired for their achievements and qualities are heroes No survivors are persons admired for their achievements and qualities. No survivors are heroes. No survivors are heroes. All former hostages are survivors. No former hostages are heroes.

For the argument to be sound, the burden of proof in on Ms. Coyne to show that the premise “No survivors are persons admired for their achievements and qualities” is true. Since she did not do this, her argument is deceptive. ↩

90. Adapted from Gautama, The Aphorisms of the Nyáya Philosophy , trans. J. R. Ballantyne, Sanskrit and English (Allahabad: Presbyterian Mission Press, 1854), IV: 49. Soldiers might be required to travel, fit or not, but it's not the case that a soldier qua soldier is always fit to travel. ↩

92. Charles Kingsley,“ Froude's History of England, Vols. VII & VIII ,” in Macmillan's Magazine 9 (January, 1864), 217. This example was suggested in John J. Toohey's An Elementary Handbook of Logic (New York: Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss, 1918), 183. ↩

93. Charles Kingsley, “ To the Editor of Macmillan's Magazine ,” Macmillan's (February, 1864), 368. ↩

94. Aaron Burr, “ Letter No. 1 , ” in The Burr-Hamilton Duel with Correspondence Preceding Same, ed. Irving C. Gaylord (New York: Hamilton Bank, 1889), 5. ↩

95. Alexander Hamilton, “ Letter No. 2 ,” in The Burr-Hamilton Duel , 6-9. ↩

96.George Y. Bizer, Shirel M. Kozak, and Leigh Ann Holterman, “The Persuasiveness of the Straw Man Rhetorical Technique,” Social Influence 4 no. 3 (July, 2009), 227-228. doi: 10.1080/15534510802598152 ↩

97. Thomas Vernon and Lowell L. Nissen, Reflective Thinking , 160. ↩

98. Hillary Rodham Clinton, What Happened (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017), viii. ↩

99. C. Everett Koop, “ The Importance of Drinking Plenty of Water for Enhancing Weight/Fal Loss,” ,” Dedicated Strength: Tag Archives: C. Everett Koop (December 11, 2013) ↩

100. Thomas Sowell, “ Random Thought on the Passing Scene,” Index-Journal (March 5, 2015) 97 No. 14, 6A. ↩

101. Robert Lowes, “ Opioid Makers May Have to Teach Physicians About Yoga ,” Medscape News (12 May 2017). ↩

102. Mary Ann Crum, “Change Hearts, Not Menus,” Index Journal , 94 No. 54 (June 23, 2012), 7A. ↩

103. Daniel White, “ Here Are All the Women in Justin Trudeau's New Cabinet ” Time World (November 4, 2015). ↩

104. Clarence Darrow, The Plea of Clarence Darrow In Defense of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, Jr. on Trial for Murder (Chicago: Ralph Fletcher Seymour, 1924). 14. ↩

105. Tricia Ward and Nina Teicholz, “ An Interview With The Big Fat Surprise Author Nina Teicholz ,” Medscape Multispecialty . ↩

106. Marc Thiessen, “There is Nothing Wrong with a Census Question About Citizenship,” 100 no. 16 Index-Journal (April 3, 2018), 8A.. ↩

107. Abigail Van Buren “Dear Abby,” The Index-Journal (February 2, 1980), 14. ↩

108. Mona Charen, “Hoping for the Real Deal in Francis,” Index-Journal 94 no. 322 (March 19, 2013), 6A. ↩

Readings: Ignoratio Elenchi

Contributors, “ Straw Man ,” Wikipedia.

Scott F. Aikin, “ Straw Men, Iron Men and Argumentative Virtue ,” Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy 35 no. 1 (2016), 431-440. doi: 10.1007/s11245-015-9308-5

Scott Aikin and John Casey, “ Don't Feed the Trolls: Straw Men and Iron Men ,” in Virtues of Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (May, 2013), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_11

Scott F. Aikin and John Casey, “Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men,” Argumentation 25 (2011), 87-105. doi: 10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y

Anthony Blair, “Premissary Relevance,” Argumentation 6 no. 2 (May, 1992), 203-217. doi: 10.1007/bf00154326

David Hitchcock, “ Enthymematic Arguments ,” Informal Logic 7 no. 2&3 (1985), 83-97. doi: 10.22329/il.v7i2.2707 [Also here “Chapter 4: Enthymematic Arguments,” in On Reasoning and Argument: Essay in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking eds. Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Anthony Blair; Argumentation Library vol. 30 (Cham, CH: Springer, 2017), 39-56.] doi: 10.1515/9783110867718.289

Erik C.W. Krabbe, “Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations ,” Topoi 31 no. 2 (April, 2012), 243-248. [ HTML link ] doi: 10.1007/s11245-012-9124-0

Erick C.W. Krabbe and Jan Albet Van Laar, “About Old and New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies,” Informal Logic 27 no. 1 (February 2008), 27-58. doi: 10.22329/il.v27i1.463

Erik C.W. Krabbe, “ So What? Profiles for Relevance Criticism ,” Argumentation 6 no. 2 (May, 1992), 271-283. doi: 10.1007/BF00154330

Marcin Lewinski, “ Towards a Critique-Friendly Approach to the Straw Man Fallacy Evaluation ,” Argumentation 25 no. 4 (November, 2011), 469-497. [ Academia ] doi: 10.1007/s10503-011-9227-6

Marcin Lewinski and Steve Oswald, “ When and How Do We Deal with Straw Men? A Normative and Cognitive Pragmatic Account ,” Journal of Pragmatics 58 Part B (December 2013), 164-177. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001

Fabrizio Macagno and Douglas Walton, Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation (Cham, CH: Springer International, 2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4

Jacques Moeschler, “Pragmatic Connectives, Argumentative Coherence and Relevance,” Argumentation 3 no. 3 (August, 1989), 321-339. doi: 10.1007/BF00128944 Google

W.H.S. Monck, “ Petitio Principii and Ignoratio Elenchi , ” An Introduction to Logic (Dublin: Hodges, Foster & Figgis, 1880), 83-89.

Steve Oswald and Marcin Lewinski, “ Pragmatics, Cognitive Heuristics and the Straw Man Fallacy ,” in Rhée et Cognition — Rhetoric and Cognition eds. Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald Sciences pour la Communication vol.112 (New York: Peter Lang, nd). T doi: 10.3726/978-3-0352-0271-7/21 Also here: “ Pragmatics, Cognitive Heuristics and the Straw Man Fallacy ”

Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin, “ Two Forms of Straw Man ,” Argumentation 20 no. 3 (September, 2006), 345-352. doi: 10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8 Also here .

Christopher W. Tindale, “Fallacies of Diversion,” in Fallacies and Argument Appraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 19-40. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511806544.003 Google preview: [“ Table of Contents. ”]

Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, “Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum ad Hominem, ” Argumentation 6 no. 2 (May, 1992), 141-159. doi: 10.1007/bf00154322

Douglas N. Walton, “ Classification of Fallacies of Relevance ,” Informal Logic 24 no. 1 (January 2004), 71-103. doi: 10.22329/il.v24i1.2133 The red herring fallacy is distinguished from ignoratio elenchi

Douglas N. Walton, “ Ignoratio Elenchi : The Red Herring Fallacy ” Informal Logic 2 no. 3 (1979), 3-7. doi: 10.22329/il.v2i3.2823

Douglas N. Walton, “The Philosophical Basis of Relatedness Logic,” Philosophical Studies 36 no.2 (August, 1979), 115-136. doi: 10.1007/bf00354266

Douglas N. Walton, “ The Straw Man Fallacy ,” in Logic and Argumentation ed. Johan van Bentham, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Frank Veltman (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1996), 115-128. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139600187.009 Also, here: “ The Straw Man Fallacy ”

Douglas N. Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (New York: Routledge, 2013). doi: 10.4324/9781410609441 [Google Preview: “ Ch. 6: Evidence and Methods for Making Relevance Judgments.” ]

Douglas N. Walton, Topical Relevance in Argumentation (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982). doi: 10.4324/9781410609441

Douglas N. Walton, “Which of the Fallacies are Fallacies of Relevance?,” Argumentation 6 no. 2 (May, 1992), 237-250. doi: 10.1007/bf00154328

Douglas N. Walton and Fabrizio Macagno, “ Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations ,” Informal Logic 31 no. 1 (2011), 27-55. doi: 10.22329/il.v31i1.657

Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (London: J. Mawman, 1826), 187-202.

John Woods, “Apocalyptic Relevance,” Argumentation 6 no. 2 (May, 1992), 189-202. doi: 10.1007/bf00154325

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.5: Fallacies of Relevance

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 86857

Fallacies of Relevance

Home informal fallacies.

Assessing the legitimacy of arguments embedded in ordinary language is rather like diagnosing whether a living human being has any broken bones. Only the internal structure matters, but it is difficult to see through the layers of flesh that cover it. Soon we’ll begin to develop methods, like the tools of radiology, that enable us to see the skeletal form of an argument beneath the language that expresses it. But compound fractures are usually evident to the most casual observer, and some logical defects are equally apparent.

The informal fallacies considered here are patterns of reasoning that are obviously incorrect. The fallacies of relevance, for example, clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. Although they are often used in attempts to persuade people by non-logical means, only the unwary, the predisposed, and the gullible are apt to be fooled by their illegitimate appeals. Many of them were identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin names for them have passed into common use. It’s worthwhile to consider the structure, offer an example, and point out the invalidity of each of them in turn.

Home Appeal to Force ( argumentum ad baculum )

In the appeal to force , someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might propose:

If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.
I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.
Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could neverthelss be false. Since that is possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true.

Home Appeal to Pity ( argumentum ad misericordiam )

Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry.

I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children.
If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work.
If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.
Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the premises are all true, so the argument is fallacious.

Home Appeal to Emotion ( argumentum ad populum )

In a more general fashion, the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion:

As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already realized, the Governor’s plan for financing public education is nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised in the harmless sheep’s clothing of concern for children.
Therefore, the Governor’s plan is bad public policy.

The problem here is that although the flowery language of the premise might arouse strong feelings in many members of its intended audience, the widespread occurrence of those feelings has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

Home Appeal to Authority ( argumentum ad verecundiam )

Each of the next three fallacies involve the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between the truth of a proposition and some feature of the person who asserts or denies it. In an appeal to authority , the opinion of someone famous or accomplished in another area of expertise is supposed to guarantee the truth of a conclusion. Thus, for example:

Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan believes that spiders are insects.
Therefore, spiders are insects.

As a pattern of reasoning, this is clearly mistaken: no proposition must be true because some individual (however talented or successful) happens to believe it. Even in areas where they have some special knowledge or skill, expert authorities could be mistaken; we may accept their testimony as inductive evidence but never as deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion. Personality is irrelevant to truth.

Home Ad Hominem Argument

The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument , in which we are encouraged to reject a proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can happen in several different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be false because of who believes it to be true:

Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21.
. . . dresses funny and smells bad. or
. . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally or
. . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18 or
. . . doesn’t understand the law any better than the rest of us.
Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the truth of a conclusion for no better reason than that someone believes its opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true (and the intended conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent beliefs or shares a common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.

Home Appeal to Ignorance ( argumentum ad ignoratiam )

An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise. Thus, for example:

No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.
Therefore, there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter.

But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don’t know could nevertheless be so.

Home Irrelevant Conclusion ( ignoratio elenchi )

Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.

All children should have ample attention from their parents.
Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their children.
Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.

Here the premises might support some conclusion about working parents generally, but do not secure the truth of a conclusion focussed on women alone and not on men. Although clearly fallacious, this procedure may succeed in distracting its audience from the point that is really at issue.

The Philosophy Pages. Authored by : Garth Kemerling. Located at : http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Module 8: Critical Thinking and Reasoning

Informal fallacies.

An informal fallacy occurs because of an error in reasoning. Unlike formal fallacies which are identified through examining the structure of the argument, informal fallacies are identified through analysis of the content of the premises. In this group of fallacies, the premises fail to provide adequate reasons for believing the truth of the conclusion. There are numerous different types of informal fallacies. In the following, we consider some of the more common types.

accident (sweeping generalization)

A fallacy by accident occurs when a generally true statement is applied to a specific case that is somehow unusual or exceptional. The fallacy looks like this:

Xs are normally Ys. Z is an (ab- normal) X. Therefore, Z is an Y.

Let’s look at a specific example to see how this fallacy can easily occur:

Dogs are good pets. Coyotes are dogs. Therefore, coyotes are good pets.

I do personal attacks only on people who specialize in personal attacks. – Al Franken

genetic fallacy (ad hominem)

If we examine this exchange we can see that Bill’s arguments are sound and supported by what appears to be good evidence. However, Jane ignores these and focuses on Bill’s supposed character – he’s a big jerk. The fallacy happens when we connect the truth of a proposition to the person asserting it.

The ad hominem fallacy occurs when we shift our focus from the premises and conclusions of the argument and focus instead on the individual making the argument. An easy way to remember this fallacy is to think of it as the personal attack fallacy. It is the weak form of arguing that many of us employed on our elementary school playgrounds such as this exchange:

Bill: I think we should go back to class now.

Jane: I don’t think we need to worry about it.

Bill: Well, the bell rang a few minutes ago. We’re going to be late.

Jane: Well, you’re a big jerk and don’t know anything, so we don’t have to go back to class.

Let’s consider a more serious example that we see in many political campaigns. We can map out the fallacy as follows:

My opponent has trait X. Therefore, she is not qualified to do the job.

The focus here is on the individual’s trait, even when the trait in question has nothing to do with the job. We saw this fallacy in play in the early days of the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign:

We will never get out of debt if we allow a Democrat to remain as president.

The focus here has nothing to do with any individual candidate’s skills, experience, or abilities. The focus is solely on their political affiliation.

There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words. – Thomas Reid

ambiguity (equivocation)

Fallacies caused by ambiguity occur, not surprisingly, when some ambiguous term is used in the argument. An ambiguous term is one that has more than one meaning. The structure of the argument may be clear, and there may be solid evidence supporting the propositions. The problem arises from having nothing solid on which to base our conclusion. We saw this fallacy in play during the Clinton/Lewinsky investigations. If you recall, when questioned about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton responded that he never had “sexual relations” with that woman. The phrase “sexual relations” can include a whole range of sexual behaviors.

We won’t be safe until we win the war on terrorism.

Can you spot the ambiguity? Actually there are two: safe and terrorism. What is safe to one person is much less so to another. Likewise, behaviors that appear terrorist-like to one person are simply impassioned acts to another.

An appeal to the reason of the people has never been known to fail in the long run. – James Russell Lowell

fallacies of appeal

This type of fallacy is actually a group of fallacies. At its most basic, the truth of the argument rests on reference to some outside source or force. We will consider four of the most popular appeal fallacies – appeals to authority, emotion, ignorance, and pity.

appeal to authority (ad vericundiam)

When we appeal to authority we claim the truth of a proposition is guaranteed because of the opinion of a famous person. Appeals to authority look like this:

Authority figure X says Y. Therefore, Y is true.

The fallacy in this type of reasoning occurs when we confuse the truth of the proposition with the person stating it. Instead of considering the strength of the argument and any evidence associated with it, we focus solely on the individual.

It can be easy to fall into the trap of this fallacy. For many of your speeches, you will be asked to research the issue at hand and present supporting evidence. This is a prime place for the fallacy to occur. While it is important to support your arguments with outside research, it is also important to critically evaluate all aspects of the information. Remember the example of Shonda’s speech that opened this chapter? Her blind reliance on the research of Dr. Gray is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory. – Leonardo da Vinci

appeal to emotion

This fallacy occurs with the use of highly emotive or charged language. The force of the fallacy lies in its ability to motivate the audience to accept the truth of the proposition based solely on their visceral response to the words used. In a sense, the audience is manipulated or forced into accepting the truth of the stated conclusions. Consider the following example:

Any campus member who thinks clearly should agree that Dr. Lenick is a flaming, radical, feminist, liberal. Dr. Lenick has made it clear she believes that equal rights should be granted to everyone without regard to the traditions and history of this campus or this country. Therefore, Dr. Lenick is a bad teacher and should be fired immediately.

The thrust of this argument revolves around two interrelated components – Dr. Lenick’s advocacy of equal rights for all and her alleged disregard for tradition and history. The emotional appeal rests in the phrase “flaming, radical, feminist, liberal” – words that indicate ideological beliefs, usually beliefs that are strongly held by both sides. Additionally, hot button words like these tend to evoke a visceral response rather than a logical, reasoned response.

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. – Wayne Dyer

appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

When we appeal to ignorance, we argue that the proposition must be accepted unless someone can prove otherwise. The argument rests not on any evidence but on a lack of evidence. We are to believe the truth of the argument because no one has disproven it. Let’s look at an example to see how appeals to ignorance can develop:

People have been seeing ghosts for hundreds of years. No one has been able to prove definitively that ghosts don’t exist. Therefore, ghosts are real.

Though rather simplistic, this example makes clear the thrust of this fallacy. The focus is not on supporting evidence, but on a blatant lack of evidence. While ghosts may exist, we don’t know for sure they do – or don’t for that matter. As such, we could also argue that because we can’t prove that ghosts are real they must not exist.

appeal to pity (argumentium ad misericordium)

Appeals to pity are another form of pulling on the emotions of the audience. In the appeal to pity, the argument attempts to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will fall upon the speaker. In effect, the goal is to make us feel sorry for the speaker and ignore contradictory evidence. This form of fallacy is used often by students. Consider this message a professor recently received at the end of the semester:

The student here acknowledges he does not deserve a grade of C or higher. He has missed assignments, failed the midterm, and accrued a number of absences. His argument asks the professor to ignore these facts, though, and focus on the fact that without him the team would lose. In other words, he hopes the professor will feel sorry for him and ignore the evidence.

begging the question (petitio principii)

A begging the question fallacy is a form of circular reasoning that occurs when the conclusion of the argument is used as one of the premises of the argument. Arguments composed in this way will only be considered sound or strong by those who already accept their conclusion.

Dilbert: And we know mass creates gravity because more dense planets have more gravity.

Dogbert: How do we know which planets are more dense?

Dilbert: They have more gravity.

To see how begging the question develops as a fallacy, let’s turn to standard arguments in the abortion debate. One of the common arguments made by those who oppose legalized abortion is the following:

Murder is morally wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Most people would agree with the first premise that murder is morally wrong. The problem, then rests in the second premise. Not all individuals would agree that abortion is murder. However, as presented, the premise creates a presumption it is valid in all cases.

Those who advocate for legalized abortion are not immune from this fallacy. One of their standard arguments is:

The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to control their bodies. Abortion is a choice affecting women’s bodies.

Therefore, abortion is a constitutional right.

Like the previous example, the second premise generates a potential stopping point. While the choice to have or not have an abortion does clearly impact a woman’s body, many individuals would argue this impact is not a deciding issue.

black-or-white Fallacy (bifurcation)

There is no black-and-white situation. It’s all part of life. Highs, lows, middles. – Van Morrison

Let’s look at another hot button topic to see how this fallacy develops in action. In recent years many family advocacy groups have argued that, what they call, the “liberal media” has caused the rapid moral decline of America. They usually ask questions like: Do you support families or moral depravity? This question ignores the whole range of choices between the two extremes.

composition

This fallacy occurs when we assume that if all the parts have a given quality, then the whole of the parts will have it as well. We jump to a conclusion without concrete evidence. We see this fallacy at work in the following example:

All of the basketball team’s players are fast runners, high jumpers, and winners. Therefore, the team is a winner.

The problem here is the individuals must work together to make the team a winner. This might very well happen, but it might not.

To make this fallacy more clear, let’s look at a humorous, though not so appetizing example:

I like smoothies for breakfast because I can drink them on the run. My favorite breakfast foods are scrambled eggs, fresh fruit, bagels with cream cheese, soy sausage links, cottage cheese, oatmeal, cold pizza, and triple espressos. Therefore, I would like a breakfast smoothie made of scrambled eggs, fresh fruit, bagels with cream cheese, soy sausage links, cottage cheese, oatmeal, cold pizza, and triple espressos.

If you’re not feeling too nauseated to keep reading, you should be able to see the composition fallacy here. While each of these breakfast items may be appetizing individually, they become much less so when dropped into a blender and pureed together.

The opposite of the composition fallacy, a division fallacy occurs when we think the parts of the whole contain the same quality as the whole. Let’s turn to another food-based example to see how this fallacy occurs:

Blueberry muffins taste good. Therefore, the individual ingredients comprising blueberry muffins also taste good.

Here’s one more example to make the fallacy clearer:

Women in general make less money than men. Therefore, Brenda Barnes, CEO of the Sara Lee company, makes less money than the male delivery drivers who work for the company.

Common sense will tell you the CEO of a company makes more money than the hourly delivery drivers. Additionally, a few quick minutes of research will confirm this inference.

false cause (non causa, pro causa)

Yesterday Jen went out in the rain and got soaked. The next day she was in bed with the flu. Therefore, the rain caused her to get sick.

Most of us probably grew up hearing statements like this without ever realizing we were being exposed to a logical fallacy in action. Flu is caused by exposure to a virus, not to bad weather.

The other type of causal fallacy occurs with a general causation between types of events. For example, we know that drinking excessive amounts of alcohol leads to alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver. However, not every individual who drinks excessively develops either of these diseases. In other words, there is a possibility the disease will occur as a result of excessive drinking, but it is not an absolute.

red herring (irrelevant thesis)

This fallacy occurs when we introduce an irrelevant issue into the argument. The phrase “red herring” comes from the supposed fox hunting practice of dragging a dried smoke herring across the trail so as to throw off the hound from the scent. In logical reasoning, the red herring fallacy works in much the same way. No, this doesn’t mean you make the argument while smelling like an old fish. What it does mean is that we attempt to distract the audience by introducing some irrelevant point, such as this:

Each year thousands of people die in car accident across the country. Why should we worry about endangered animals?

This argument is trying to get us to focus on dead people instead of animals. While car accidents and the deaths resulting from them are a serious issue, this fact does not lessen the importance of worrying about endangered animals. The two issues are not equated with each other.

Political campaigns are a fertile ground for growing red herring fallacies. If you think back to the 2004 Presidential campaign you will find a number of red herrings. For example, at one point we were inundated with ads reminding us that John Kerry’s wife was heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune. The implication was that by extension John Kerry was a rich elitist incapable of understanding the plight of working class and middle class individuals.

slippery slope

This fallacy occurs when we assume one action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. It makes it seem like the final event, the bottom of the slope, is an inevitability. Arguments falling prey to the slippery slope fallacy ignore the fact there are probably a number of other things that can happen between the initial event and the bottom of the slope.

We hear examples of the slippery slope fallacy all around us:

If we teach sex education in school, then students will have more sex. If students have more sex, we will have a rash of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Students will be forced to drop out of school and will never have the chance to succeed in life.

Clearly, just learning about sex doesn’t automatically mean that you will engage in sex. Even more unlikely is the fact that merely learning about sex will force you to drop out of school.

This fallacy occurs when the actual argument appears to be refuted, but in reality a related point is addressed. The individual using a strawman argument will appear to be refuting the original point made but will actually be arguing a point not made in the original. The best strawman arguments will argue the new point to a conclusion that appears solid; however, because their point is not the original point, it is still a fallacy.

Examples of the strawman fallacy are everywhere and can appear to be quite persuasive:

President Obama cannot truly have American interests in mind because he’s not truly American but Muslim.

Statements similar to this were quite prevalent during the 2008 Presidential election and still appear on occasion. The assumption here is that if a person follows Islam and identifies as Muslim they clearly can’t be American or interested in America. While there are many potential flaws in this argument as presented, for our purpose the most obvious is that there are many Americans who are Muslim and who are quite interested and concerned about America.

false analogy

A and B are similar. A has characteristic X. Therefore, B has characteristic X.

This fallacy often occurs when we try to compare two things that on the surface appear similar. For example:

Humans and animals are both living, breathing beings. Humans have civil rights. Therefore, animals have civil rights.

The problem in this argument is that while humans and animals are alike in their living and breathing status, there are numerous other ways they differ. We commit a fallacy when we infer that based on this initial similarity, they are similar in all other ways as well.

The other day while looking at houses, I heard another version of this argument from a real estate agent. The house I was looking at was an older house needing some TLC. I asked how old the roof was and the real estate agent responded:

I don’t know for sure, but it’s either 10 or 20 years old. You know, though, I put a roof on a house similar to this when I was younger and we haven’t had to worry about it. It’s been over 20 years now.

Ignoring for the moment that there’s a big difference between a 10-year-old roof and a 20-year-old roof, the real estate agent mistakenly assumes that his roof and the roof of the TLC house are the same. They both provide a covering for the home, but that’s about where their similarities end.

Chapter 6 Informal Fallacies. Authored by : Terri Russ, J.D., Ph.D.. Provided by : Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN. Located at : http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html . Project : The Public Speaking Project. License : CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
Image of coyote. Authored by : g'pa bill. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/89wB9C . License : CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
Image of sick woman. Authored by : Courtney Carmody. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/8hrFDY . License : CC BY: Attribution
Image of climbing on slippery slope. Authored by : Tony Roberts. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/9vhshy . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Image of comparing apple and orange. Authored by : Mike. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/ccmWs . License : CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
Image of doctor in surgical mask. Authored by : wax115. Provided by : MorgueFile. Located at : http://mrg.bz/jwkCdC . Project : Free to remix, commercial use, no attribution required. http://www.morguefile.com/license/morguefile. License : All Rights Reserved
Image of basketball hoop. Authored by : Annika. Provided by : MorgueFile. Located at : http://mrg.bz/XluBMB . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Free to remix, commercial use, no attribution required. http://www.morguefile.com/license/morguefile
Still image of bifurcated man. Authored by : gregorija1. Located at : http://youtu.be/vi7QQ5pO7_A . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Image of US Soldiers. Authored by : Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jackey Bratt. Provided by : US Navy. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_060920-N-4097B-026_Soldiers_from_the_U.S._Army%5Ersquo,s_Apache_Troop,_2nd_Squadron,_9th_Cavalry_Regiment_exit_a_home_in_Muqdadiyah,_Iraq,_after_searching_it.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
Image of blueberry muffin. Authored by : Renee Comet. Provided by : National Cancer Institute. Located at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muffin_NIH.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

[F03] Irrelevance

Module: Fallacies and biases

F01. What is a fallacy
F02. Inconsistency
F04. Insufficiency
F05. Inappropriate presumption
F06. List of fallacies
F07. Exercises on fallacies
F08. Cognitive biases

Quote of the page

- John Dewey

Popular pages

What is critical thinking?
What is logic?
Hardest logic puzzle ever
Free miniguide
What is an argument?
Knights and knaves puzzles
Logic puzzles
What is a good argument?
Improving critical thinking
Analogical arguments

Fallacies of relevance are of two kinds:

§1. Taking irrelevant considerations into account

This includes defending a conclusion by appealing to irrelevant reasons, e.g. inappropriate appeal to pity, popular opinion, tradition, authority, etc. An example would be when a student failed a course and asked the teacher to give him a pass instead, because "his parents will be upset". Since grades should be given on the basis of performance, the reason being given is quite irrelevant.

Similarly, suppose somone criticizes the Democratic Party's call for direct elections in Hong Kong as follows : "These arguments supporting direct elections have no merit because they are advanced by Democrats who naturally stand to gain from it." This is again fallacious because whether the person advancing the argument has something to gain from direct elections is a completely different issue from whether there ought to be direct elections.

§2. Failing to take relevant considerations into account

For example, it is not unusual for us to ignore or downplay criticisms because we do not like them, even when those criticisms are justified. Or sometimes we might be tempted into making snappy decisions thinking that our decisions are the best when in fact we should be investigating the situation more carefully and doing more research.

Of course, if we fail to consider a relevant fact simply because we are ignorant of it, then this lack of knowledge does not constitute a fallacy.

homepage • top • contact • sitemap

To access this content, you must purchase ClassicalU Monthly Subscription, ClassicalU Annual Subscription or ClassicalU Annual Subscription (PO with no trial period). To access this content, you must purchase ClassicalU Monthly Subscription , ClassicalU Annual Subscription or ClassicalU Annual Subscription (PO with no trial period) .

Receive training tips and more.

717-857-3362
[email protected]

Privacy Overview

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

See blocked member's posts
Mention this member in posts
Invite this member to groups
Message this member
Add this member as a connection

Please note: This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin. Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)

We all talk, argue, and make choices every day. Sometimes, the things we or others say can be a bit off or don't make complete sense. These mistakes in our thinking can make our points weaker or even wrong.

Logical fallacies are mistakes in how we reason or argue a point. They can be small mix-ups or times when someone tries to trick us on purpose.

By learning about these errors, you can better spot them when you hear or read them. As you read on, you'll learn more about these tricky mistakes and how to steer clear of them.

Introduction to Logical Fallacies

Imagine you're piecing together a puzzle. Each piece needs to fit perfectly for the whole picture to make sense. In conversations and debates, our arguments are like those puzzle pieces. They need to fit well together, making our points clear and strong.

However, sometimes, a piece might be bent or out of place, making the whole picture a bit off. That's how logical fallacies work in our discussions. They're like those misfit puzzle pieces that can make our whole argument seem less clear or even wrong.

Logical fallacies, in simple terms, are errors or mistakes in our reasoning. You might come across them when you're chatting with a friend, watching the news, or even reading a book.

Some of these mistakes happen because we don't know better, while others might be used intentionally to mislead or persuade.

Let's say you're discussing which ice cream flavor is the best. Your friend might say, "Well, my grandma thinks vanilla is the best, so it must be!" This kind of reasoning isn't strong because one person's opinion, even if it's your grandma, doesn't prove a point for everyone.

This is an example of a fallacy called appeal to authority . It’s just one of the many logical fallacies you'll come across.

When we talk about logical fallacies, we often categorize them into two main types: informal and formal.

Informal Fallacies

Think of these as mistakes or errors in reasoning that arise from the content of the arguments rather than the structure.

They're called 'informal' because they deal with everyday language and common conversations. These fallacies often involve statements that might sound true initially, but upon closer inspection, they don't hold up.

Examples include the ad hominem argument or fallacy, where someone attacks the person rather than their argument, or the appeal to authority , where someone assumes a statement is true because an expert or authority says so.

Formal Fallacies

These are a bit more, well, formal. They deal with errors in the structure or form of an argument.

It doesn't matter what the content of the argument is; if it's structured wrongly, it's a formal fallacy. You can think of these like a math problem: if you don't follow the right steps, you won't get the right answer.

An example of a formal fallacy is the affirming the consequent , which goes like this: "If it rains, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained." While the statements might sound logical, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

In a nutshell, while informal fallacies stem from the content of arguments and often arise in casual conversations, formal fallacies are all about structure, and they can be spotted regardless of the topic being discussed.

All fallacies can be proven wrong because they have flawed reasoning or insufficient supporting evidence, make an irrelevant point, or don't have an actual argument. Even if it seems like they come to a logical conclusion, they do so in an illogical way.

Common Logical Fallacies

Let's look at some of the most common logical fallacy examples.

Ad Hoc Fallacy

This is a fallacy where someone makes up a reason on the spot to support their argument, even if it doesn't make sense.

Picture this: you're debating about climate change and its causes. Your friend, instead of using scientific evidence, says, "Well, it's just a cycle the Earth goes through. My grandpa said so!" This is an Ad Hoc Fallacy. The reason is made up on the spot and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

This is when someone attacks the person instead of their argument.

Imagine you're chatting about which game is the best, and instead of giving reasons, someone says, "Well, you wear glasses so that you wouldn’t understand!" That's not a good reason, right?

Anecdotal Fallacy

An Anecdotal Fallacy occurs when someone relies on personal experiences or individual cases as evidence for a general claim, overlooking larger and more reliable data.

Appeal to Pity

An Appeal to Pity Fallacy is an argument that attempts to win you over by eliciting your sympathy or compassion rather than relying on logical reasoning.

Straw Man Fallacy

Here, someone changes or oversimplifies another person's argument to make it easier to attack. It's like building a weak version of the original point and then knocking it down.

Person A: "I think we should have more regulations on industrial pollution to protect the environment." Person B: "Why do you want to destroy jobs and hurt our economy by shutting down all industries?" In this case, Person A never said they wanted to shut down all industries, but Person B set up a "straw man" version of Person A's argument to knock it down.

Ecological Fallacy

An Ecological Fallacy occurs when you make conclusions about individual members of a group based only on the characteristics of the group as a whole.

Bandwagon Fallacy

This one's about popularity. Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it's true.

Remember when everyone believed the earth was flat? Being popular doesn't always mean being right.

Loaded Question

A loaded question fallacy is a trick question that contains an assumption or constraint that unfairly influences the answer, leading you toward a particular conclusion.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

This is when someone says that if one thing happens, other bad things will follow without good reasons.

Like if someone says, "If we let kids have phones, next they'll want to drive cars at 10 years old!" It's a big jump without clear logic connecting the two.

False Cause Fallacy

This is thinking one thing causes another just because they happen together.

Like believing every time you wear a certain shirt, your team wins. It's fun to think about, but the shirt probably isn't the reason for the win.

Appeal to Probability

An Appeal to Probability Fallacy is a misleading reasoning technique that assumes if something is likely, it must be certain to happen.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

We talked about this one earlier! Just because someone famous or important believes something doesn't make it true.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy

This is when someone makes a broad claim based on very limited evidence .

For instance, after seeing two movies with a particular actor and not liking them, you declare, "All movies with this actor are terrible."

False Dichotomy Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when someone presents only two options or solutions when more exist.

Example: "You're either with us, or you're against us." In reality, someone might be neutral or have a more nuanced opinion.

Proof Fallacy (Argument from Ignorance)

This is when someone assumes something is true because it hasn't been proven false or vice versa.

Example: "No one has ever proven that aliens don't exist, so they must be real."

Tu Quoque Fallacy

This fallacy points out hypocrisy as an argument against the claim. It's like saying, "You too!"

Example: "Why are you telling me not to smoke when you used to smoke?"

Post Hoc Fallacy ( Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)

This fallacy assumes that if 'B' occurred after 'A', then 'A' must have caused 'B'.

Example: "I wore my lucky socks, and then passed my exam. My socks made me pass!"

No True Scotsman Fallacy

This fallacy happens when someone redefines a term to fit their own writing or argument or to exclude a counterexample.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman, and puts sugar in his porridge." Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

This cognitive bias is when someone focuses on a subset of their data and ignores the rest to make a point.

Looking at a large set of data and only selecting the bits that support your claim, like a shooter firing randomly at a barn wall, then painting a target around the shots that are closest together.

Middle Ground Fallacy

Middle Ground is the belief that a compromise between two conflicting positions must be the truth or the best solution.

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the original argument.

For instance, when asked about pollution levels, a politician says, "We have some of the best parks in the country, and our citizens love spending time in nature."

False Analogy Fallacy

Any time someone says "X is like Y" to compare one thing with something else that isn't the same but does share similarities, they're making a false analogy .

For instance, saying cars and bicycles are the same because they both have wheels is an oversimplification.

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

This logical fallacy makes the mistake of using a claim to support itself . A is true because B is true.

Perhaps you've seen a commercial claiming a product is the best because so many people buy it. But when pressed on how they know so many buy it, they respond because the product is the best.

Accident Fallacy

An Accident Fallacy is the misuse of a general rule by applying it to a specific case it doesn’t properly address.

Begging the Question Fallacy

A begging-the question-fallacy occurs when the argument's conclusion is assumed in its premise. In other words, it's a form of circular reasoning where the thing you're trying to prove is already assumed to be true.

Appeal to Ignorance

An Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.

Fallacy of Composition

A fallacy of composition is the flawed reasoning that concludes what is true for individual parts must also be true for the entire group or system they belong to.

Equivocation Fallacy

An equivocation fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used with two meanings in the same argument, leading to confusion or a misleading conclusion.

Naturalistic Fallacy

A naturalistic fallacy , also known as the appeal to nature fallacy, comes to a false conclusion by assuming that everything in nature is moral and right.

Why Do We Fall for Fallacies?

Everyone, at some point, has believed in something that turned out to be not entirely true. Just like when we believe in myths or fairy tales , there's something in our brains that can sometimes make us accept ideas without fully questioning them. This is where logical fallacies sneak in.

Firstly, our brains love shortcuts . These shortcuts, called heuristics , help us make decisions faster.

For example, if you've always had great pizza from a particular restaurant, the next time you think of pizza, your brain will likely suggest that place.

But shortcuts can also lead us astray. If someone speaks confidently, our brains might take a shortcut and believe them, even if what they're saying has mistakes.

Secondly, emotions play a big role . We're humans, after all! If someone tells a sad story, we might feel so touched that we don't stop to think if the story proves the point they're making.

Or if everyone in our group believes something, we might feel the need to fit in and believe it too. This is known as groupthink , a classic trap many fall into.

Lastly, sometimes it's just easier . Questioning everything and thinking critically can be tiring. So, there are moments when we might accept something because it's simpler or because we don't want to start an argument.

But here's the good news: by learning about logical fallacies and understanding why we sometimes fall for them, you can train your brain to spot and avoid these traps.

The History of Logical Fallacies

Back in the day, long before smartphones and computers, people gathered and debated big ideas in places like Greece. One of the smartest guys around then was a man named Aristotle . He's often thought of as the first person who cared about logical thinking.

Aristotle started to notice that some arguments, even if they sounded good, had problems in them. He began to point out these mistakes and gave them names. Many of the fallacies he talked about are still recognized today!

After Aristotle, many other thinkers also became interested in how we argue and reason. They noticed that these mistakes, or fallacies, weren't just random errors. They followed patterns.

Fast forward to modern times, and this study hasn't stopped. It's become even more important.

Today, with information everywhere - on TV, the internet, and social media - it's crucial to sort out what's reliable from what's not . Teachers, writers, and even politicians study logical fallacies to communicate better and avoid misleading people.

Basic Argument Structure

A good argument is built piece by piece, ensuring each is supported by the other. Understanding how arguments are put together helps you spot when a part of the argument doesn't make sense.

At the heart of any argument are two main parts: premises and conclusions .

Think of the premises as the foundation of the argument. They're the facts or reasons you give. The conclusion is the point you're trying to make based on those reasons.

Let's use a simple example. Imagine you say:

All dogs bark. (This is a premise.)
Rover is a dog. (This is another premise.)
So, Rover barks. (This is the conclusion.)

In this case, the argument is pretty solid. Both premises support the conclusion. But, if you have a shaky premise like "All cats bark," your conclusion will be off, even if it sounds right.

Sometimes, arguments have more than two premises, or they might be more complicated. But no matter how big or fancy the argument is, the same rule applies: the premises must be solid to support a good conclusion.

Logical Fallacy Examples in Life

Logical fallacies might seem small or harmless, but they can influence our decisions, beliefs, and actions in significant ways.

Advertising

Consider the world of advertising. Ads often use emotional appeals or bandwagon techniques to convince you to buy a product.

"Everyone's using this toothpaste, so you should too!" or "This celebrity loves our shoes, and you will too!"

If we don't recognize these as bandwagon or appeal to authority fallacies, we might end up spending money on things we don't need.

Social Media

Then there's the realm of social media. We've all seen heated debates in comment sections.

People might attack someone's character instead of their ideas, which is the ad hominem fallacy. Or, someone might oversimplify another person's viewpoint, setting up a straw man argument to easily tear it down.

When we're unaware of these tactics, it's easy to get dragged into unproductive or hurtful conversations.

And it's not just online. In real life, we make decisions based on information from friends, family, news, and many other sources.

If we're not careful, we might base important choices on faulty logic. Like believing a certain health remedy works just because a famous person endorses it without checking the actual science behind it.

Tips to Avoid Falling for Logical Fallacies

Understanding logical fallacies is half the battle. But how do you avoid them in real life? It's a bit like avoiding potholes on a road. Once you know where they are and what they look like, you can steer clear.

Here are some handy tips to help you navigate the landscape of logic more safely.

Stay Curious: Always be open to learning. The more knowledge you gather, the better you'll be able to recognize when something doesn't add up.
Question Everything: Just because something sounds right doesn't mean it is. Like a detective, look for evidence and ask yourself if an argument makes sense.
Slow Down: Our world is fast-paced. But sometimes, taking a moment to think before responding or making a decision can save you from falling into a logical trap.
Stay Humble: Remember, it's okay to be wrong. If someone points out a flaw in your reasoning, thank them. It's a chance to learn and grow.
Discuss with Others: Talking things out can be a great way to spot flaws. Different perspectives can shine a light on areas you might have missed.
Educate Yourself: There are plenty of resources, including books and courses, that can deepen your understanding of logical thinking. The more you learn, the sharper your logic skills will become.
Practice Makes Perfect: Like any skill, spotting logical fallacies gets easier with practice. Challenge yourself by analyzing arguments in articles, shows, or conversations. The more you do it, the better you'll get.

Remember, nobody's perfect. We all slip up from time to time. But with these tips in your toolkit, you'll be well on your way to clearer, more logical thinking.

Spot the Fallacy Quiz

Try to identify each fallacy based on the examples provided. The answers are provided at the end.

"My mom said that broccoli is good for me, so it must be true."
"Either you stand with us, or you’re against us."
"She can’t be a great scientist. Have you seen how disorganized her office is?"
"We know our product is the best because it’s the top-selling item in its category."
"He can’t be a criminal; he comes from a nice family and attended a prestigious university."
"Well, you smoke cigarettes, so you have no right to tell me not to eat junk food."
"We can’t let the students have extra recess time; soon, they’ll want the whole school day to be a playground."
"Everyone’s going to the big football game, so it must be amazing."
"No one has proven that ghosts don’t exist, so they must be real."
"He’s never been to Asia, so he can't possibly know how to prepare Asian cuisine."
"You can’t trust John’s political opinion because he’s just a mechanic."
"We’ve always done it this way, so it’s the best way to keep doing it."
"You believe in evolution? Well, that’s just a theory!"
"If you cared about the environment, you wouldn't drive a car."
"Since you didn’t deny the allegations immediately, you must be guilty."
"We don’t know what causes thunder, so it must be the gods showing their anger."
"This anti-aging cream must work; see all these photos of people who look younger after using it!"
"No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!"
"If we allow people to protest, it will encourage lawlessness and chaos."
"We can't believe in climate change. Think of all the jobs we will lose in traditional industries!"
Appeal to Authority
False Dichotomy/Black and White Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Slippery Slope
Argument from Ignorance
No True Scotsman
Appeal to Tradition
Black-and-White Fallacy
Argument from Silence
God of the Gaps/Argument from Ignorance
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Appeal to Consequence

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Logical Fallacies

What is a logical fallacy? A logical fallacy is an error or flaw in reasoning. These errors can weaken arguments and can be intentional or unintentional. They often appear to sound convincing but are based on faulty logic.

Why do people use logical fallacies? Some people might use them unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge or clarity in thinking. Others might use them strategically to persuade or deceive, especially if they believe their audience won't recognize the fallacy.

Are all fallacies intentional? No. Many fallacies are the result of honest mistakes or oversights in reasoning. However, some can be used manipulatively in debates, advertisements, or persuasive speeches.

What’s the difference between an informal and a formal fallacy? Informal fallacies are mistakes in reasoning based on the content of an opponent's argument, often arising in everyday language. Formal fallacies are structural errors in an argument, regardless of the argument's content.

Can a statement be true even if it contains a logical fallacy? Yes. A fallacy indicates flawed reasoning, not necessarily a false conclusion. However, conclusions reached through fallacious reasoning should be critically evaluated.

How can I improve my ability to spot logical fallacies? Educate yourself on different types of fallacies, engage in discussions, analyze arguments in various media, and regularly practice identifying them. Over time, spotting most common logical fallacies will become second nature.

Are logical fallacies a modern concept? No. The study of fallacies dates back to ancient Greece, with philosophers like Aristotle detailing various types of flawed arguments.

Why is it essential to recognize logical fallacies? Recognizing fallacies can help you make better decisions, strengthen your own arguments, and avoid being misled by faulty reasoning.

Can a logical fallacy be valid in some contexts? While the reasoning may be flawed, the underlying point someone is trying to make could still be valid. However, it's essential to separate the valid point from the fallacious argument.

Grasping the nuances of logical fallacies is more than just an academic exercise—it's a life skill.

In a world saturated with information, discerning sound arguments from flawed ones is invaluable. As you continue your journey in understanding and recognizing these fallacies, you're not only refining your ability to think critically but also empowering yourself to engage more constructively in discussions and debates.

Remember, pursuing clear, logical, critical thinking is a journey, not a destination. As you grow and learn, you'll become better equipped to navigate the complex landscape of ideas and arguments that surround us daily.

Ad Hoc Fallacy (29 Examples + Other Names)
Genetic Fallacy (28 Examples + Definition)
Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy (29 Examples + Description)
Hasty Generalization Fallacy (31 Examples + Similar Names)
Appeal to Force Fallacy (Description + 9 Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

SWOT Analysis
Business Models

10+ Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Examples in Media, Real Life, Politics, News & Ads

Irrelevant conclusion fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, irrelevant conclusion fallacy.

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Definition

Table of Contents

The “irrelevant conclusion” fallacy is when a person makes a conclusion that has little or nothing to do with the argument they are trying to make. For example, one might hypothesize that a lion might attack a human if they are provoked.

Moral suasion meaning | example of moral suasion, confirmation bias fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, 13 extravagant hypothesis fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads.

This fallacy occurs when the argument attempts to refute a claim by pointing out an irrelevant side of the argument. People like to watch movies; they never cease to amaze me with their stories and in-depth plots.

Many people like to watch movies with compelling stories and in-depth plots. The fallacy in this argument is that it is irrelevant to attack the conclusion; instead, one must attack the argument’s reasoning.

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Examples

Irrelevant conclusion example in philosophy.

Examples of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Philosophy:

“The parents are the ones that should be punished, not the kid because they made the decision to send the kid to school.”

Which position — being against punishing the parents and punishing the kid, or being for punishing the parents and punishing the kid — is the best position to take on this issue? It seems that the position that is for punishing both parents and the kid is the best position to take

With all the research and studies today, some people may come to a false conclusion. That is the irrelevant conclusion fallacy. This fallacy can be caused by preconceived notions and neglecting to account for all relevant evidence.

Regardless, it is important to understand the conclusion fallacy and how it impacts your research and studies. Most people use the irrelevant conclusion fallacy on purpose, but many people don’t realize they are using this fallacy.

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Real-Life Examples

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Real Life:

There are many examples of irrelevant conclusions, such as:

“I’m not going to buy this car because I don’t like the color.”
“The only reason you’re failing this class is because you’re not studying enough.”
You are not going to get a good grade on your paper because you didn’t cite the sources.
Your dog is sick because it ate too many treats.
The reason why there’s no more ice cream left in the freezer is because someone took it all out.

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Examples in Media

Examples of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Media:

A news article is about the CEO of a company who has been accused of sexual harassment. The article concludes that the accusations are false because there is no evidence to support them.

This conclusion is irrelevant because it does not address whether or not the accusations are true.

Irrelevant Conclusion Examples in Advertising

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Advertising:

A commercial for a watch features an attractive woman who is wearing the watch and is about to go on a date, but she can’t find her keys. The voiceover says, “You’ll never lose your keys again.”

An ad for a new car features an attractive woman driving the car while looking at herself in the rearview mirror and smiling. The caption reads, “So easy to drive.”

A commercial for laundry detergent shows two women fighting over clothes that have been washed with this brand of detergent because they are so clean and fresh-smelling

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Politics

Examples of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Politics:

This politician has had a long and successful career in politics. He is well-respected by his peers, which is why he was appointed to the position of Secretary of State.

The conclusion that this politician made an irrelevant statement doesn’t hold up because it’s based on false assumptions.

The conclusion is not supported by the evidence. The argument is irrelevant to the question being asked. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy examples in Movies

Examples of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Movies:

The movie ends with the protagonist dying, and you don’t know what happened to the antagonist. The movie ends with a fight scene that doesn’t make sense because it was never resolved. The protagonist’s journey is not complete, so there is no conclusion

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Examples in Literature

Examples of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Literature:

In “ The Great Gatsby ,” the narrator, Nick Carraway, is a bystander to the events of Jay Gatsby’s life.

It is unclear whether he approves or disapproves of what he sees, but his narration remains objective and detached.

The novel concludes with Nick’s description of his own future as an older man, looking back on the past.

Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Examples in News

Examples of Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in News:

The article is about a car accident. It concludes that the driver’s recklessness caused the accident.

This conclusion does not address any of the points in the argument

17+ weak analogy fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, misleading statistics fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, 10+ is-ought fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, 13+ complex question fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, 13+ complex cause fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, 11+ reification fallacy examples in media, real life, politics, news & ads, latest post, 4 types of loans available to seniors, da vinci eye app shark tank update.

10 Differences Between Agile and Waterfall Methodology
Odd Even Pricing Examples In Business
Captive Product Pricing Example In Clothing

Recent News

Advertisement
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions

IMAGES

The Irrelevant Thesis Fallacy
18 Examples Of Fallacies To Help Improve Argumentation
Irrelevant Thesis Fallacy by jacob smith on Prezi
25 Fallacy Examples in Real Life
Examples of How Logical Fallacies Are Used
Irrelevant Goals fallacy

VIDEO

Art of Argument Fallacies 13 & 14
irrelevant conclusion fallacy: decision making #ideas
29. Andrew Steane "Quantum Computing, the Church-Turing Thesis and the Babel Fallacy"
UGC NET Paper 1
116 Hypothesis Testing: F Test, Testing Omitted and Irrelevant Variables
Methods of Philosophizing

COMMENTS

10.2: Fallacy of Irrelevant Reasons
The fallacy of irrelevant reasons is also sometimes called the red herring fallacy. This name is a reference to the fact that people who were fleeing from trackers with bloodhounds would sometimes wipe a dead animal across the path to throw the dogs off their trail. The name irrelevant reason is a sort of catch-all label.
The Irrelevant Thesis Fallacy
The Irrelevant Thesis fallacy The irrelevant thesis fallacy is an argument that distracts by making a case for the wrong point. A person who violates this f...
Red Herring: Using Irrelevant Information as a Distraction
The red herring fallacy is closely associated with a fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi (meaning "ignorance of refutation"), which is sometimes also referred to as wrong conclusion, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, or missing the point. This fallacy involves presenting an argument whose conclusion is irrelevant to the discussion at ...
Irrelevant conclusion
An irrelevant conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for 'ignoring refutation') or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument whose conclusion fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.. The irrelevant conclusion should not be confused with formal fallacy, an argument whose conclusion does not follow from ...
Proving the Thesis
There are several logical fallacies: sweeping generalization - hasty generalization resulting in conclusion that is not necessarily accurate; inductive reasoning (going from a particular point to a universal rule) which is not thought through carefully. There is one rotting apple in the bag; therefore, all the apples in the bag are rotting.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Ignoratio elenchi typically takes the form of a person providing a response that is wholly unrelated to the original question or statement, and is thus considered a logical fallacy. Ignoratio elenchi can be seen in many different forms. For example, if someone asked a question such as "What can we do to reduce emissions?", and the response ...
Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion);
Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion); Straw Man; Red Herring; Non Sequitur. Abstract: Ignoratio elenchi, or "ignorance of the refutation," is broadly defined as any incorrect argument which reaches an evidentially irrelevant conclusion.Historically, the fallacy is also more narrowly defined as a counterargument to an argument or thesis which does not attempt to prove the contradictory ...
Logical Fallacies
A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others. Logical fallacy example.
Ignoratio elenchi
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; "elenchi" is from the Greek ...
Irrelevant Conclusion
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, also known as the ignoratio elenchi ("ignorance of the proof") fallacy, is, in effect, the parent of all other fallacies since every fallacy yields a conclusion that even if it be true is not related - that is, is irrelevant - to the premises of the argument. Arguments that commit the irrelevant ...
4.5: Fallacies of Relevance
The informal fallacies considered here are patterns of reasoning that are obviously incorrect. The fallacies of relevance, for example, clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. Although they are often used in attempts to persuade people by non-logical means, only the unwary, the predisposed, and the ...
Logical Fallacy: Red Herring
Red Herring. Alias 1: Befogging the Issue, Diversion, Ignoratio Elenchi 2, Ignoring the Issue, Irrelevant Conclusion, Irrelevant Thesis . Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Red Herring Subfallacies: Appeal to Consequences, Bandwagon Fallacy, Emotional Appeal, Genetic Fallacy, Guilt by Association, Straw Man, Two Wrongs Make a Right ...
Informal Fallacies
red herring (irrelevant thesis) This fallacy occurs when we introduce an irrelevant issue into the argument. The phrase "red herring" comes from the supposed fox hunting practice of dragging a dried smoke herring across the trail so as to throw off the hound from the scent. In logical reasoning, the red herring fallacy works in much the ...
Red Herring
While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument. ... misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of ...
[F03] Irrelevance
Taking irrelevant considerations into account. This includes defending a conclusion by appealing to irrelevant reasons, e.g. inappropriate appeal to pity, popular opinion, tradition, authority, etc. An example would be when a student failed a course and asked the teacher to give him a pass instead, because "his parents will be upset". Since ...
Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion
Other articles where fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is discussed: fallacy: Material fallacies: (3) The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is committed when the conclusion changes the point that is at issue in the premises. Special cases of irrelevant conclusion are presented by the so-called fallacies of relevance. These include ( a) the argument ad hominem (speaking "against the man ...
Lesson 13: Irrelevant Thesis
In this session, Aaron Larsen leads the discussion about the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. This fallacy is another fallacy of relevance that is also a "red herring" fallacy. When we use this fallacy, we seek to make an argument that distracts by making a case for the wrong—or an irrelevant—point. Outline (00:16) Dr. Larsen introduces this ...
Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)
Logical fallacies are mistakes in how we reason or argue a point. ... This fallacy introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the original argument. For instance, when asked about pollution levels, a politician says, "We have some of the best parks in the country, and our citizens love spending time in nature." ...
13: Logical Fallacies, Part 1
Irrelevant Goals or Functions ("Argument from Consequences") - a fallacy of distraction that irrelevantly critiques an idea for failing to do something it was never intended to do. 15. Irrelevant Thesis ("Ignoring the Issue", "Ignoratio Elenchi") - a fallacy of distraction that addresses a tangentially related (and perhaps valid ...
Logical Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis
The logical fallacy of irrelevant thesis occurs when reasons are given that, if true, still would not prove the conclusion. In these cases, the premises (or reasons to believe) may be true, but the conclusion doesn't follow from them. Logical Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis
Irrelevant Thesis Fallacy by jacob smith on Prezi
The irrelevant thesis fallacy is committed when he brought up the attendance to the party, the question was regarding which band should play at the party. The quickest way to check a response for the fallacy is to ask if the question was answered. The other quick method is to ask yourself if the answer was on topic, or had a relevant thesis.
10+ Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy Examples in Media, Real Life
Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy in Real Life: There are many examples of irrelevant conclusions, such as: "I'm not going to buy this car because I don't like the color.". "The only reason you're failing this class is because you're not studying enough.". You are not going to get a good grade on your paper because you didn't cite ...

Red Herring: Using Irrelevant Information as a Distraction

Examples of red herrings

Understanding the red herring fallacy

How to respond to red herrings

Additional information

Summary and conclusions

Other articles you may find interesting:

Related Pages

Ignoratio Elenchi

Example of Ignoratio Elenchi

Books About Logical Fallacies

Ignoratio Elenchi Extended Explanation

Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion); Straw Man; Red Herring; Non Sequitur

Monotonic Logic

Fallacies of Relevance

Notes: Ignoratio Elenchi

dictum de omni et nillo

Readings: Ignoratio Elenchi

4.5: Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Relevance

Home Appeal to Force ( argumentum ad baculum )

Home Appeal to Pity ( argumentum ad misericordiam )

Home Appeal to Emotion ( argumentum ad populum )

Home Appeal to Authority ( argumentum ad verecundiam )

Home Ad Hominem Argument

Home Appeal to Ignorance ( argumentum ad ignoratiam )

Home Irrelevant Conclusion ( ignoratio elenchi )

Module 8: Critical Thinking and Reasoning

accident (sweeping generalization)

genetic fallacy (ad hominem)

ambiguity (equivocation)

fallacies of appeal

appeal to authority (ad vericundiam)

appeal to emotion

appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

appeal to pity (argumentium ad misericordium)

begging the question (petitio principii)

black-or-white Fallacy (bifurcation)

composition

false cause (non causa, pro causa)

red herring (irrelevant thesis)

slippery slope

false analogy

[F03] Irrelevance

§1. Taking irrelevant considerations into account

§2. Failing to take relevant considerations into account

Privacy Overview

Block Member?

Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)

Introduction to Logical Fallacies

Informal Fallacies

Formal Fallacies

Common Logical Fallacies

Ad Hoc Fallacy

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Anecdotal Fallacy

Appeal to Pity

Straw Man Fallacy

Ecological Fallacy

Loaded Question

Slippery Slope Fallacy

False Cause Fallacy

Appeal to Probability

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

Hasty Generalization Fallacy

False Dichotomy Fallacy

Proof Fallacy (Argument from Ignorance)

Tu Quoque Fallacy

Post Hoc Fallacy ( Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)

No True Scotsman Fallacy

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

Middle Ground Fallacy

Red Herring Fallacy

False Analogy Fallacy

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Accident Fallacy

Begging the Question Fallacy

Fallacy of Composition

Equivocation Fallacy

Naturalistic Fallacy