AP® English Language and Composition · Logical Fallacies in Reasoning
Red Herring: Changing the Subject on Purpose
A red herring answers a question by moving to a nearby topic that sounds related but settles nothing about the original issue. It works because the new topic is often true and appealing, so it feels like progress.
A red herring feels like an answer because it borrows credibility from somewhere real. Someone asks why the bridge project ran 12 million dollars over budget, and the commissioner describes engineers working 70-hour weeks through two winters. That is true, and it is moving, and it is not an account of the money. The subject has shifted from a dollar figure to a feeling, and the feeling is persuasive enough that listeners forget to ask where the shift happened.
Mechanically, a red herring works by swapping the question under discussion for an adjacent one without announcing the swap. The new topic sits close enough to the original that the connection seems obvious, but no actual link gets argued. Dedication does not explain cost overruns; staffing shortfalls do not automatically explain skipped inspections. Until someone draws that line explicitly, the two topics just sit next to each other, unconnected.
Not every change of subject is a fallacy. If a lease debate shifts from renewal to the building's foundation and then to a 15 percent repair estimate, that is not a diversion, because a foundation's repair cost is part of what the lease is actually worth. The test is relevance, not motion: ask whether the new topic bears on the question's truth. This is what separates a red herring from the straw man next to it, which misrepresents the original argument rather than abandoning it. A red herring does not need to be refuted, because it was never a reply. The original question survives untouched underneath it, and putting that question back on the table is the only way to find out whether the diversion ever connected to anything at all.
Key terms
- Red herring
- An argument that shifts to a nearby but unconnected topic, leaving the original question unanswered.
- Relevance
- Whether a claim actually bears on the truth of the question being asked.
- Straw man
- A nearby fallacy that misrepresents an opponent's argument rather than changing the subject entirely.
- Abandoned question
- The original issue left unresolved once a red herring has redirected attention elsewhere.
Watch it explained
- How it worksHow does a red herring drag attention onto a nearby topic that settles nothing?
- Worked exampleFind the abandoned question when 'Why did the budget overrun?' is met with 'Our staff work hard.'
- Common mistakeWhy isn't every change of subject during a debate a red herring?
- Going furtherWhat happens to a red herring once the original question is put back on the table?
Check yourself
End of topic.