--- title: "Red Herring" description: "A red herring introduces an irrelevant point that diverts attention from the question actually at issue. The new topic is often genuinely interesting or emotionally charged, which is what makes the switch work: the audience follows the diversion and the original argument is quietly left unanswered." last_updated: "2026-08-02" --- # Red Herring A red herring introduces an irrelevant point that diverts attention from the question actually at issue. The new topic is often genuinely interesting or emotionally charged, which is what makes the switch work: the audience follows the diversion and the original argument is quietly left unanswered. Introducing an irrelevant point to divert attention away from the issue actually under discussion. *Example: Asked about missed deadlines, a manager suddenly starts talking about how hard everyone worked over the holidays.* ## What it looks like **In a budget hearing** > You ask about the cost overrun, but let me tell you about the dedicated public servants who worked nights on this project. *Why it fails:* Staff dedication is real and irrelevant to why the budget was exceeded. The question asked for an accounting and receives a tribute instead. **In a performance review** > Yes, the deadline slipped, but have you seen how much the client loves our design work? *Why it fails:* Design quality is a separate axis. It may be worth discussing, but raising it here answers a question about schedule with a fact about aesthetics. **In a debate about data privacy** > Critics complain about data collection, but this company created ten thousand jobs. *Why it fails:* Employment does not bear on whether the collection practices are acceptable. A company can be a major employer and still handle data badly; the two claims do not interact. ## Practice ### Question 1 A journalist asks a minister about missed emissions targets. The minister replies: "What we should really be discussing is the extraordinary progress we have made on rural broadband." What has happened? A. A red herring — an unrelated topic is substituted for the one asked about B. A straw man — the minister misrepresented the journalist's question C. An ad hominem — the minister attacked the journalist D. A false dilemma — the minister offered only two options **Answer: A.** Red herring: broadband is a real achievement and entirely disconnected from emissions targets. The contrast with straw man is worth holding onto — a straw man would have distorted the emissions question and then answered the distortion, staying nominally on topic. This reply does not engage the question at all; it replaces it. ### Question 2 What makes a red herring effective as a rhetorical move? A. The diversion is usually boring, so nobody notices B. The new topic is typically interesting, sympathetic, or emotionally charged, so the audience willingly follows it away from the original question C. It is always delivered by someone with authority D. It relies on the audience being uneducated **Answer: B.** The diversion has to be attractive or it fails — nobody abandons a question for something dull. This is why red herrings so often invoke jobs, children, safety, or hard-working people: topics that feel wrong to dismiss. Recognizing the move means noticing that a topic can be both genuinely important and completely irrelevant to what was asked. ### Question 3 Which of these is NOT a red herring? A. "You question the safety data, but think of the patients waiting for this treatment." B. "You criticize the budget, but our competitors spend even more." C. "You say the tests are failing — here is the log showing which three assertions fail and why." D. "You raise the delay, but the team morale has never been higher." **Answer: C.** Option C answers the question that was asked with directly relevant detail. The other three each pivot to a different subject — patient need, competitor spending, morale — none of which bears on the safety data, the budget, or the delay respectively. Note that option B is close to a tu quoque as well, since it deflects by pointing at what others do. ### Question 4 How is a red herring different from simply changing the subject in conversation? A. There is no difference B. A red herring is presented as though it addresses the original point, which is what makes it a fallacy rather than just a topic change C. Red herrings only happen in formal debates D. Changing the subject is always fallacious **Answer: B.** Ordinary conversation moves between topics constantly and nothing is wrong with that. The fallacy requires the pretence of relevance — the new point is offered as a response, so the original question appears to have been handled when it has not. The tell is often a "but" that joins two claims which do not actually connect. ### Question 5 What is the most effective response to a red herring? A. Engage fully with the new topic to show good faith B. Acknowledge the new point briefly if it deserves it, then return explicitly to the unanswered question C. Accuse the speaker of dishonesty D. Introduce a red herring of your own **Answer: B.** Brief acknowledgement avoids seeming dismissive of something that may genuinely matter, while the explicit return prevents the substitution from succeeding — "That's worth discussing separately. On the emissions targets, though…" Option A is exactly what the move is designed to produce. Accusing the speaker shifts to their motives and abandons your question just as surely. ## Frequently asked ### Where does the name red herring come from? It refers to the idea of dragging a strong-smelling smoked fish across a trail to divert hounds from a scent. The etymology is disputed as an account of actual practice, but the image captures the structure exactly: something pungent enough to pull the pursuit off course. ### Is a red herring always intentional? No. People often drift to adjacent topics they find more comfortable or more familiar without any strategy behind it, especially under pressure. The reasoning defect is identical either way — the original question stays unanswered whether or not anyone meant to avoid it. ### How is a red herring different from a straw man? A straw man stays on the topic but misrepresents the position, then defeats the misrepresentation. A red herring leaves the topic entirely. Straw man fights a fake version of your argument; red herring fights a different argument altogether. Both leave the real one standing. ## Related - [Straw Man](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/glossary/straw-man.md) - [Tu Quoque](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/glossary/tu-quoque.md) - [Appeal to Emotion](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/glossary/appeal-to-emotion.md) - [Identifying Logical Fallacies](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/exercises/identifying-fallacies.md) - [Fallacy Detection in Arguments](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/exercises/fallacy-detection-in-arguments.md) - [Lesson: traps-and-pitfalls/logical-fallacies-formal-relevance](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/pages/learn/traps-and-pitfalls/logical-fallacies-formal-relevance.md) ## Sitemap See the full [sitemap](https://www.criticalthinkingexercise.org/sitemap.md) for all pages.