Red Herring
An irrelevant topic dragged in to distract.
What it is
A red herring drags in an irrelevant topic to distract from the real issue.
The new topic might be interesting or emotional. It is still not evidence for the conclusion. On the LSAT, watch for a reply that never engages the original claim.
An LSAT-style example
This example is original. It is not a real LSAT question.
Yes, the dam project is over budget. But think of all the jobs the construction created for this town.
The flaw: Jobs are a separate question. Whether the project is over budget is not answered by talking about jobs.
How to spot it on test day
- Ask: does this point actually bear on the conclusion?
- Emotional or impressive facts are classic herrings. Check relevance, not impressiveness.
- The reply changes the subject instead of answering.
The right answer vs. the trap
The right answer
The correct answer says the argument introduces an irrelevant consideration.
The trap
The trap may treat the new fact as a counterargument. A fact can be true and still be irrelevant to the point at issue.
Find your weak flaws
The free diagnostic scores every question type, including flaw questions, and shows exactly where you are losing points.