economy, then this would amount to red herring. This is a demonstration of his lack of
understanding the fundamentals of the economy and how strong they are.
The error that is committed in the fallacy
The error that is committed in the fallacy is the shift in conversation from the
understanding of the fundamentals of this economy to the owning of houses (Barnet & Bedau,
2005). In this case, the reasoning is neither well formulated, well connected nor well established.
The formulation in theis case relates to understating exactly what the person said in contrary to
what he was expected to say or respond. In relevant to the conclusion, the individual diverted the
attention and appeared to draw the attention of the owning houses as opposed to responding to
the issues of understanding the fundamentals of the economy. The person said things that would
be considered logically irrelevant to the questions raised and rather persuades the audience to
non-logical grounds of self-interest (Barnet & Bedau, 2005).
Strategies that will help in avoiding this fallacy
The common mistake that was made in the formulation of the reasoning is an
interpretation of the views that the individual wished to respond to and misinterpretation of the
nature of the issues he was to address (Bluedorn & Bluedorn, 2003). To avoid this red herring
fallacy, one should divide each case under examination into various parts as possible for the
solution to the issue. Failure to understand a statement would lead to jumping to conclusions and
therefore dividing each case improves the understanding of the matters at hand. Other practices
include making enumerations so completes and comprehensive to ensure that the person is
assured that nothing relevant is omitted in the answer. Moreover, beginning the statement with
the things that are deemed simplest to understand is key to ensuring that a statement does not