Straw Man and Red Herring

Two of the most insidious fallacies in argumentative writing involve manipulating the focus of a debate. The straw man fallacy misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, whilst the red herring introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the real issue. Both are extremely common in the opinion pieces and policy debates that form the basis of LNAT Section A passages.

---

The Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man is committed when someone distorts, exaggerates, or oversimplifies an opponent's argument, and then attacks this weaker version instead of the original.

Why "Straw Man"?

The name comes from military training: a straw man is easier to knock down than a real opponent. By replacing a strong argument with a distorted version, the attacker gives the appearance of refuting it without ever engaging with the real position.

Structure

Step	What happens
1. Original argument	Person A presents a nuanced or specific position
2. Misrepresentation	Person B restates A's position in a distorted, exaggerated, or oversimplified form
3. Attack	Person B attacks the distorted version
4. Conclusion	Person B claims to have refuted A's original argument

Example 1: Exaggeration

Original argument: "We should introduce stricter background checks for firearm purchases to reduce gun violence."

Straw man response: "My opponent wants to take away everyone's guns. This is an attack on our fundamental freedoms."

The original argument called for stricter background checks, not a total ban. The response exaggerates the position into something more extreme and then attacks the extreme version.

Example 2: Oversimplification

Original argument: "The curriculum should include more teaching about diverse cultures and histories, alongside the existing content, to give students a broader understanding of the world."

Straw man response: "These people want to throw out our national history and replace it with foreign ideologies."

The original argument called for additional content alongside existing material. The response distorts this into a replacement of national history.

---

How to Spot a Straw Man in LNAT Passages

Look for these signals:

1. An opponent's view is summarised before being attacked — check whether the summary is accurate
2. Extreme language in the summary — words like "all", "every", "completely", "always", "never" when the original was more moderate
3. The attack feels too easy — if the argument being refuted seems obviously absurd, ask whether it has been fairly represented
4. "So you're saying..." — phrases that reframe an opponent's position often introduce distortions

Worked Example

"Environmentalists argue that we should abandon fossil fuels entirely and immediately, regardless of the economic consequences. This is dangerously naive. Millions of jobs depend on the oil and gas industry, and an overnight transition would cause widespread economic devastation. We cannot sacrifice people's livelihoods on the altar of environmental ideology."

Question: Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument?

A. It fails to acknowledge that climate change is a serious problem. B. It misrepresents environmentalists' position by suggesting they advocate for an immediate and complete end to fossil fuel use, then attacks this exaggerated version. C. It overstates the number of jobs that depend on fossil fuels. D. It assumes that economic considerations are more important than environmental ones.

Answer: B. Most environmental organisations advocate for a gradual transition with economic support for affected communities — not an overnight abandonment of fossil fuels. The passage creates a straw man by attributing an extreme position to environmentalists and then knocking it down.

---

The Red Herring Fallacy

A red herring is committed when someone introduces an irrelevant topic or consideration into a discussion to divert attention from the original issue.

Why "Red Herring"?

The name supposedly derives from the practice of dragging a smoked herring (which has a strong scent) across a trail to throw hunting dogs off the scent. In argument, a red herring throws the reader off the logical trail.

Structure

Step	What happens
1. Topic A is being discussed	The argument concerns a specific issue
2. Topic B is introduced	A different (often emotionally compelling) issue is raised
3. Attention shifts	The discussion moves to Topic B
4. Topic A is left unresolved	The original issue is never properly addressed

Example

"Critics have raised concerns about the government's surveillance programme, arguing that it violates citizens' privacy rights. But we should remember that the government has also invested heavily in schools and hospitals. The real question is whether we want a government that keeps us safe and provides essential services."

The discussion was about surveillance and privacy. The shift to schools, hospitals, and "keeping us safe" is a red herring — it does not address the privacy concerns at all.

---

Distinguishing Red Herrings from Legitimate Context

Not every change of topic is a red herring. Sometimes additional context is genuinely relevant.