Difference Between Ad Hominem And Red Herring
Ad Hominem vs. Red Herring
The fallacies Ad Hominem and Red Herring are closely related; however, they are not the same and must remain distinct. Ad Hominem is an invalid argument that attacks the person rather than the policy that they are bringing across. An example of this would be a student demeaning a teacher’s grading by insulting her intelligence. On the other hand, Red Herring is a fallacy that involves bringing up irrelevant information in order to avoid bringing attention to the real issue. This fallacy is a distraction technique that is often used in arguments. An example of Red Herring would be a politician saying, “We must raise our revenue to support educational activities. Don’t you like children? We must support the kids!” Even though both of these fallacies are methods of distraction, the difference between the two must be acknowledged. Ad Hominem involves the attempt at making a person’s argument invalid by attacking them, whereas Red Herring is bringing up unnecessary information in order to distract.
Begging the Question vs. Circular Reasoning …show more content…
Begging the Question is when writers assume evidence for the argument they are trying to prove. For example, ”English 112 is a useless course, therefore you should not take it.” Differently, Circular Reasoning when a person restates the argument instead of answering the question. An example of this would be, ”she has travelled a lot because she’s been to many countries.” The difference between these fallacies is that Begging the Question assumes information is true in order to prove an argument whereas circular information uses valid information it just does not answer the
The fallacies Ad Hominem and Red Herring are closely related; however, they are not the same and must remain distinct. Ad Hominem is an invalid argument that attacks the person rather than the policy that they are bringing across. An example of this would be a student demeaning a teacher’s grading by insulting her intelligence. On the other hand, Red Herring is a fallacy that involves bringing up irrelevant information in order to avoid bringing attention to the real issue. This fallacy is a distraction technique that is often used in arguments. An example of Red Herring would be a politician saying, “We must raise our revenue to support educational activities. Don’t you like children? We must support the kids!” Even though both of these fallacies are methods of distraction, the difference between the two must be acknowledged. Ad Hominem involves the attempt at making a person’s argument invalid by attacking them, whereas Red Herring is bringing up unnecessary information in order to distract.
Begging the Question vs. Circular Reasoning …show more content…
Begging the Question is when writers assume evidence for the argument they are trying to prove. For example, ”English 112 is a useless course, therefore you should not take it.” Differently, Circular Reasoning when a person restates the argument instead of answering the question. An example of this would be, ”she has travelled a lot because she’s been to many countries.” The difference between these fallacies is that Begging the Question assumes information is true in order to prove an argument whereas circular information uses valid information it just does not answer the