You present an argument to prove X, and your opponent is guilty of ignoratio elenchi when her response is beside the point of what you are trying to prove - it proves a conclusion which is not the one needed to confute X. It's a fallacy of irrelevancy, and means literally 'ignorance of confutation'. Gold is only as good as one digging: Īs usual Aristotle has been here before : de Sophisticis Elenchis, vi. In the future, Wikipedia may prove a quicker answer. The term non sequitur is also often applied. But as we use this term, it is the fallacy in which the argument misses the point without necessarily making one of those mistakes-of false cause, or misplaced authority, or ad hominem attack, etc.-that characterize the other fallacies based on irrelevance. It may be said that every Fallacy of Relevance (except the begging of the question) is, in a sense, an ignoratio elenchi. Example about tax reforms on the next page. Introduction to Logic by Copi & Cohen, 1990. The premises 'miss the point'-the reasoning may seam plausible in itself, and yet the argument misfires. The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is committed when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to providing a different conclusion. Ignoratio elenchi is better in this case: Red herring could be a runner-up (if the scenario was altered). For any situation, generally, there can be multiple fallacies.

Red herring fallacy referee