Red Herring Fallacy

To distract an infant, often enough dangling keys will work. Distractions, no matter what shape or form, divert people’s attention. In certain situations, diversions are used to blind or mask the real issue. This is often found in politics and commercials. Bruce N. Waller defines irrelevant reason fallacy when, “the reasons given in support of a conclusion are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the conclusion. The reason given may be true, they may be important in other contexts… but they have no bearing on the question at issue…” (Waller). Irrelevant Reason Fallacy is also known as The Red Herring Fallacy (Waller).
It is easy to understand why the Red Herring Fallacy is effective. Any argument will seem legitimate when it is filled with facts and figures, even if it is irrelevant. Ad campaigns are justified when filled with inapplicable fact-based information. Politicians make claims and justify them with unrelated information, even if the information is true. This is frequently occurring. Essentially, the red herring fallacy is a smoke screen. A smoke screen is thrown over a topic or issue, to divert attention from the important matter at hand. It is important to determine the conclusion for a topic or argument (Waller). “What is this
Bruce N. Waller reminds us to identify the issue. The argument was that the Alaskan pipeline is not a threat to the environment. Once this is determined, Waller suggests to recognize the conclusion. The pipeline may or may not be a threat to the tundra and Alaskan shoreline. The pipeline may or may not accidentally pollute its surroundings. In contrast, this particular issue had these supporting arguments: the Alaskan pipeline is essential to the United States’ economy, Alaska has the largest oil reserves, and the pipelines are cost effective method to transport oil (Waller). All these have nothing to do with the issue at hand, a threat to its