Red Herring

Dad: “Did you finish your homework?”
Child: “Why are schools so obsessed with homework anyway?”

A red herring is a distraction in an argument. You commit this fallacy when you shift to a related-sounding but irrelevant point to avoid answering a question or responding to a claim that you can't refute.

In 1807, the English writer William Cobbett told a story about using a red herring (a smoked, salted herring) to throw hunting dogs off a hare’s trail as a metaphor for how the press had misled readers. That led to a figurative meaning of a red herring being a distraction in a discussion.

Many other logical fallacies, such as tu quoque and guilt by association, double as red herrings when they’re used to divert the conversation away from the issue at hand.

When you face a red herring, redirect back to the original issue, but agree to return to the other topic later if it's important. For example:

A: “What is the budget overrun?”
B: “Let’s talk about how hard my team has been working.”
A: “Our question is whether the report is accurate. Your point about effort matters for recognition, but it doesn’t answer this. Let’s look at the budget numbers first, then discuss effort.”

Next fallacy (Fallacy of Composition)

Back to the Logical Fallacy Handbook