The Dishonest Argument uses diversionary tactics by introducing irrelevant elements,

The Dishonest Argument uses diversionary tactics by introducing irrelevant elements,

such as:
 Proving a totally irrelevant conclusion: “Of course you need a word processor –
typewriters are totally inefficient.” [Do we need a word processor?]
 Introducing a „red herring‟: The scent of a red herring is used by a hunt-master to
draw his hounds off the trail they are following and onto a new one of his choice.
A speaker can do exactly the same in an argument to divert the receivers from the
main point, and prevent the logical conclusion (which may be against him) from
being reached: “I say, that‟s my wallet you are holding! Yes, and a very nice
72
72
wallet it is, too. Do you know how much crocodile skin costs nowadays?” The red
herring may also take the form of an anecdote, joke or other irrelevant humour.
 Logic traps or ambiguities:
o Presenting only two alternatives, when there are in fact others. This traps
the receiver in a false dilemma, limiting his options: “If you are not with
me, you are against me.”
o Slipping in unjustified assumptions into a question requiring a yes/no
answer: “Do you love your family enough to keep them safe with this
security system?” (If „yes‟, then buy it. If „no‟- shame on you!). Or: “Have
you stopped fiddling the account?” (If „yes‟: you used to. If „no‟: you still
do it!)
o Equivocating, making your words conceal their meaning, so that logic
cannot grasp anything solid: “You can rest assured that your letter will
receive the attention it fully deserves.”
These, then, are some of the methods which might have a short-term persuasive effect.
They should, however, be kept out of a constructive discussion as much as possible.
Receivers come to realize eventually that they have been tricked or pressured, and in
business context particularly you depend on the good will, trust, and cooperation of the
people you attempt to influence.