philosophy.lander.edu

Philosophy Homepage » Logic Homepage » Informal Fallacies » Ad Populum

Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion);
Straw Man; Red Herring; Non Sequitur

Abstract: Ignoratio elenchi, or “ignorance of the refutation,” is broadly defined as any incorrect argument which reaches an evidentially irrelevant conclusion. Historically, the fallacy is also more narrowly defined as a counterargument to an argument or thesis which does not attempt to prove the contradictory of what was intended to be proved.

In practice today, ignoratio elenchi often functions as a “catch-all” category of any fallacy of relevance not specified as one of the specific traditional fallacies of relevance. These interpretations are discussed here with a variety of specific examples and are compared to several similar overlapping fallacies, including the fallacies of non sequitur, red herring, and straw man.

1. The Aristotelian Dialogical Form of Ignoratio Elenchi (mistaking the issue): a fallacy occurring in a dialogue or a disagreement of arguing to a conclusion not evidentially pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required and thus misses the point at issue. The General Traditional Ignoratio Elenchi is any fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is irrelevant to its premises
   
   
   
   1. The narrow form: Ignoratio elenchi is the fallacy committed when an argument proves or attempts to prove a different conclusion from what was supposed to be the point of the proof either through intentional or inadvertent irrelevancy. Specifically, it is purporting to prove a statement which is not the contradictory elenchus) of the thesis of the argument one attempts to refute.[1]
      
      
      1. It's important to realize that the argument proving a different conclusion may well be formally valid and consequently would not commit a formal fallacy.[2] Instead, the argument is said to be materially fallacious since it only, at best, proves the wrong conclusion.
         
         Alfred Milnes characterizes this aspect of the validity of some ignoratio elenchi arguments is as follows:

         “We must, therefore, be careful not to say that the reasoning is bad because it ends in what is false; for the reasoning may be quite good, and the mistake may be that we started wrongly. The journey has been safely performed, only we have got into the wrong train.”[3]

         In the Aristotelian dialectical sense of the term, the fallacy occurs when what is intended to be proved is not the contradictory of an opponent's assertion; instead, a conclusion other than the contradictory is reached. The fallacy occurs when, e.g., your argument “answers” the wrong point, so the error in reasoning is “ignorance of the fact that your Conclusion, even if established, would not contradict his Conclusion.”[4]
         
         
         
      2. In the traditional monotonic
         close ×

         Monotonic Logic

         Monotonic logic is composed of arguments whose conclusions are self-standing: the truth of their conclusions is not affected by additional statements.
         sense of the term, the fallacy occurs whenever a conclusion which is not the point at issue is proved, but which sufficiently resembles the point at issue as to be mistaken for it. The fallacy is due to the difference between the conclusion proved and the conclusion which ought to have been proved.
         
         
      3. The employment of ignoratio elenchi is most persuasive in extended argumentation when the train of reasoning used in evading the question makes it difficult to follow and maintain attention. Richard Whately pointed out two centuries ago, “[A] Fallacy which when stated barely, in a few sentences, would not deceive a child, may deceive half the world if diluted in a quarto volume.”[5]
         
         
      4. So, there are two related views of the proper context of this fallacy in logic and argumentation:

         (1) The traditional (dialectical argument) view: A disputant neglects a proper refutation which should have proved the contradictory of an opponent's thesis and instead endeavors to establish a different and unrelated point.[6]

         (2) The monological (an individual argument) view: A self-standing argument concluding something different from what was claimed to be demonstrated in an argument being criticized.[7]

         For example:

         “[I]f I am endeavouring to convince a person that some particular measure is for his personal interest, and I adduce arguments to prove that it contributes to the general utility … I am guilty of an ignoratio elenchi.[8]

         (Dialectical arguments are critical discussions between two or more persons whereas monotonic arguments are self-standing arguments in that, once stated, if valid, cannot be proved invalid.)
         
         
         
   2. It's important to emphasize that in dialogical argumentation an ignoratio elenchi fallacy can occur even if the counter-argument is sound. In such a case, the counter-argument is termed “fallacious” not because it is formally monologically fallacious (because it might not be), but because the argument is evidentially irrelevant to the refutation of the initial thesis of the dispute.[9]
      
      F.C.S. Schiller notes with respect to dialogical ignoratio elenchi;

      “To detect it, therefore, demands knowledge of the actual context and use, and psychological knowledge, to boot, of the point aimed at in the actual discussion. … For the difference between what are relevant and irrelevant considerations under any circumstances is never formally obvious. [emphasis original]”[10]

      Relevance in ignoratio elenchi is shown by intent, interest, and purpose, and is discussed below.
      
      
      1. Many logicians consider ignoratio elenchi fallacious on the basis of a historically standard view of fallacy; viz., such arguments involve deceptive language.[11] However, since many fallacies are not at all deceptive, this a definition is too narrow.
         
         
      2. Richard Whately describes an example of dialogical ignoratio elenchi in the story of two coats which occurred when King Cyrus was a child. Again, note how the fallacy in reasoning results from mistaking the question at issue:

         “One of his schoolfellows, who was tall and stout, had a coat that was too small for him; and proposed to a smaller boy, whose coat was much too big for him, to make an exchange. But the other refused; whereupon the bigger boy took away the coat by force, and left his own in exchange; and Cyrus, on being appealed to, decided in favor of the exchange. He had judged rightly which coat best fitted each boy; but this was not the real question; which was, whether it was right to take away another's property without his consent.”[12]

         A sound argument can be set up to demonstrate that the exchange of coats was proper because each boy maximizes utility by owning a fitting coat. However, this outcome is beside the essential point at issue: viz., whether it's just to take another person's property without consent.
         
         
         
   3. In general, then, an ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. The responding argument is considered fallacious because it missed, i.e. did not prove, the point at issue. For example a typical derailment of a dialogical argument can be described as follows:

      “To argue that a particular branch of study — [the study of mathematics] — should not be included in the curriculum of our schools, on the plea that it will never earn ‘bread and butter’ for nine-tenths of those who study it, would be a typical instance of the fallacy.”[13]

      Even when mathematics is not used in future employment, the study not only develops analytical skills but also probably helps improve mental focus required for other aspects of everyday life.
      
      
      
2. Ignoratio Elenchi: Outline of Main Historical Phases:
   
   
   1. The first of Aristotle's two characterizations of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy in the Sophistical Refutations (Soph. El.) is narrower than the usual contemporary usage of the term.
      
      
      1. For Aristotle, an elenchus is a syllogistic
         close ×

         Syllogism

         A two premise argument having three terms, each of which is used twice in the argument. The classic example: “ All men are mortal, Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.”
         refutation of an adversary's position which establishes the contradictory of a thesis (hence, termed a “negative dialectic”). So, literally, an ignoratio elenchi is an argument exhibiting an “ignorance of the proof of the contradictory of an adversary's conclusion” because the contradictory of the argument wasn't proved. [Arist. Soph. El. v.167a22-37].
         
         
      2. Ignoratio elenchi not only is one of Aristotle's thirteen sources of erroneous reasoning [Soph. El. v.167a22-28] but also is a name for all of the types of fallacies of relevance [Soph. El. vi.169a18-21]. This use of Aristotle's second characterization is modified by some contemporary logic textbooks which call for ignoratio elenchi to denote any fallacy of relevance not classifiable as one of the classical fallacies of relevance[14] and by most textbooks as any fallacy where the conclusion is irrelevant to the premises. non sequitur -----------------------
         
         
         
   2. This dual-view of ignoratio elenchi continued with the medieval author Peter of Spain, who first named the fallacy, and defined it as follows:

      ”‘[I]gnorance of the refutation’[:] a two part distinction is usually made about ignorance of elenchus — regarding its being one specific fallacy from among thirteen, and regarding its being the generic fallacy to which all thirteen are reduced.’” [Peter of Spain, LS 7][15]

      — the thirteen being the fallacies Aristotle enumerated in Sophistical Refutations.
      
      
      
   3. Thomas Wilson, the author of the first English logic textbook (1551), and the English theologian Henry Aldrich, author of the influential logic text Artis Logicæ Compendium[16] (1691) largely based their opaque description of the fallacy on Peter of Spain's medieval logic text “Quomondo Omnes Fallaciæ Ad Ignorantia Elenchi Reducuntur,” in Summulæ Logicales, and their summary definitions are largely consistent with Aristotle's definition.[17]
      
      
      
   4. Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole in their Port-Royal Logic (1662), one of the two most influential classical logic books since Aristotle, extended Aristotle's and Peter of Spain's view of this fallacy with this definition:

      (1) “proving something other than than which is in dispute,”

      (2) having “ignorance of that which ought to be proved,“ and

      (3) attributing “to our adversary that which is vary far from his meaning, in order to carry on the contest with greater advantage;

      ”or to impute to him consequences which we imagine may be derived from his doctrine, although he disavows and denies them.”

      (The Port-Royal Logic, written in support of Rene Descartes' philosophy, was the 17th and 18th century most authoritative logic textbook.)
      
      
      
   5. Isaac Watts' Logic (1724), used in major universities for almost two centuries, describes ignoratio elenchi as follows:

      “Ignoratio Elenchi, or a Mistake of the Question, that is, when something else is prov’d which has neither any necessary Connection or Inconsistency with the Thing enquired, and consequently gives no determination to the Enquiry, tho’ it may seem at first Sight to determine the Question …

      Disputers when they grow warm are ready to run into this Fallacy: They dress up the Opinion of their Adversary as they please, and ascribe Sentiments to him which he doth not acknowledge; and when they have with a great deal of Pomp attack’d and confounded these Images of Straw of their own making, they triumph over their Adversary as tho’ they had utterly confuted his Opinion.”[19]

      Note that Watt's describes the fallacy with the phrase “Images of Straw” forecasting what will in the next century be labeled as setting up a “straw man.”
      
      In his adjunctive The Improvement of the Mind (1741), Watts also relates “laws” of scholastic disputation, one of which prohibits ignoratio elenchi with this obligation:

      “That he must directly contradict the proposition of the respondent, and not merely attack any of the arguments whereby the respondent has supported that proposition … he must contradict or oppose the very sense and attention of the proposition as the respondent has stated to, and not merely oppose the words of the thesis in any other sense; for this would … attack a proposition different from what the respondent has espoused, which is called ignoratio elenchi.”[20]

      In the contemporary pragma-dialectics of the Dutch school, Watt's disputation rule corresponds to Rule 3: of Rules for Critical Discussion: “A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.”[21]
      
      
   6. Richard Whately, who led a revival of interest in classical logic with his influential 19th-century logic textbook, questioned the usefulness of the generality of ignoratio elenchi:

      “[F]ew would be inclined to apply to the Fallacy in question the accusation of being … illogical reasoning.… It might be desirable therefore to lay aside the name of ‘ignoratio elenchi,’ but that it is so generally adopted as absolutely to require some mention be made of it.”[22]

      His work extended the application of the fallacy to a somewhat wider sense of “irrelevant conclusion” anticipating present-day usage which more or less began with Thomas Fowler in the mid-1800s:

      “Whenever an argument is irrelevant to the object which a speaker or writer professes to have in view, it is called an ignoratio elenchi[23]

      Whereas non sequitur is characterized as an argument with an irrelevant conclusion, ignoratio elenchi is characterized as an irrelevant argument to a point at issue.
      
      
   7. Contemporary description of the fallacy, has extended the use of ignoratio elenchi to include being a “catch-all” or “rag-tag” category for any fallacy of relevance which cannot be categorized under some other heading as described by luminaries I.M. Copi, Charles Hamblin, and Douglas Walton. However, Hamblin concludes that this interpretation has “no modern justification”[24] and restricts ignoratio elenchi to its traditional use of refuting the wrong point at issue spuriously taken from an opponent's argument.
      
      
      
3. Criterion of Relevance: Any evidentially argument must either uphold or contravene supporting statements for the thesis at issue.
   
   
   The fact that no theoretical definition or sufficient condition of relevance (or “logical relatedness”) is established for informal fallacies is a central difficulty for identifying instances of this fallacy. Arguments and statements can be related in many different ways — not just in terms their topical subject matter.
   
   
   
   1. As a matter of definition, a formal analysis of relevance is not possible.
      
      
      1. Note that in formal logic, valid arguments are a property of the formal structures of statements (e.g., the syntax, form, or structure), rather than the material content or subject matter (e.g. the meaning) of those statements.
         
         
      2. If an argument is formally valid, it is so even if what is said is not understandable. For example, a formally valid argument structure can be fallacious in content or application.[25]
         
         
      3. A formally valid argument can turn out to be an informal fallacy whenever the argument is irrelevant to the thesis to be proved (as in ignoratio elenchi, straw man, or red herring) or whenever the premises are probatively irrelevant to the conclusion or the conclusion is topically irrelevant to the premises.
         
         
         
   2. One important caution in the identification of fallacies of relevance in general as well as ignoratio elenchi and its subtypes in particular, is to be aware of the both the global and local context of the argument under consideration.
      
      In other words, the subject of discourse or the viewpoint of the argumentative position of the particular argument is what determines global relevance of the argument, and the purpose or interest of the argument itself is what determines the probative or local relevance.[26]
      
      
      1. What first appears to be a fallacy of relevance from a local context (i.e. internal to the particular characteristics of the argument itself) might turn out to be globally relevant (i.e. an over-arching argument external to the particular characteristic issue detailed in the argument but exhibiting a logical relation to overriding issues which take precedence).
         
         
      2. For example, consider the following argument from Ramos v. Louisiana. The U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 1972 precedent divided-court decision in ruling that the Constitution requires that jurors in criminal cases reach unanimous verdicts:

         “Six justices agreed on the result, but that took four opinions outlining different rationales … that ranged from the most conservative … to the most liberal. … A similarly unexpected coalition of three justices … dissented, not necessarily because they thought the Constitution permits non-unanimous juries but because they thought the 1972 case should not be so lightly overruled.”[27]

         The reasons for the dissent are not relevant to the issues of the case but have to do with the legal principle of stare decisis: the court is obligated to follow previous cases when making a ruling on the same issues as in a previous case before the courts. So the doctrine of stare decisis is essentially relevant to the question of the inviolability of a legal precedent which overrides the particular question at issue, namely, the requirement for a jury's unanimous verdict in criminal cases.
         
         
         
   3. Note that when ignoratio elenchi occurs in dialectical exchange, the argument used to refute the opponent's thesis is said to be fallacious if it does not prove that thesis false. But that does not mean that argument, itself, is invalid — it only shows the wrong thesis was proved.
      
      Moreover the demonstration that a statement has not been proved does not thereby prove that the statement is false. (Q.v, the ad ignorantiam fallacy.)[28]
      
      
      
   4. The current usage of ignoratio elenchi is wider than the traditional refutative or dialogical usage. In the more general contemporary use (as a fallacy of any kind of irrelevance), the question of relevance is determined ad hoc by the material evidentially support of a conclusion. So a minimal criterion of relevance is necessary by which to test for the presence of an ignoratio elenchi and related fallacies of relevance.
      close ×

      Fallacies of Relevance

      Fallacies such as argumenta ad misericordiam, ad populum, ad baculum and ad hominem
      
      
      
      1. For this test, we will use an evidentially criterion: the requirement that any evidentially argument must either uphold or contravene supporting statements for the thesis at issue. In other words, the crucial question is whether the premises provide evidential support for or against the conclusion of the argument.
         
         
      2. Consequently, if a premise of an argument provides evidential support of either a proper denial or affirmation of a thesis in dispute, then the premise is thereby relevant, and the argument cannot be classified as an ignoratio elenchi.[29] Instead, historically, the argument has been called an argumentum ad rem: “the direct or ostensive proof [or disproof] of the thesis or main point in question.”[30]
         
         
         
   5. Non Sequitur, Red Herring, and Straw Man Fallacies are often regarded as subtypes of ignoratio Elenchi: Ignoratio elenchi is often considered broader in focus than the non sequitur, red herring, or the straw man fallacies if we include the later added “catch-all” category as part of its definition. Unfortunately these these terms have been defined in various ways with some of fallacies used interchangeably.)[31] What follows is an attempt to clarify some of the traditional interpretations of these fallacies.
      
      
      
4. A non sequitur fallacy occurs whenever a conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. Even if both premises and conclusion are true in a non sequitur, the fallacy occurs because the premises do not logically support the conclusion. Generally speaking, the non sequitur fallacy is said to occur in fallacies of relevance so confused they are impossible to classify.
   
   
   Until the early 20th century, the non sequitur was defined as a fallacy occurring whenever new material appears in the conclusion of the argument which did not appear in the premises, Under this definition, any argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises is a non sequitur fallacy, and non sequitur then would generically become equivalent to “fallacy”[32]
   
   
   1. Since non sequitur is inconsistently defined in informal logic textbooks, it is perhaps best to identify the fallacy in its lexical sense as a an argument whose conclusion does not logically follow from its premises.
      
      
      1. This traditional definition is described by William Stanley Jevons as “little more than the assertion of a conclusion which has no connection with the premises.”[33] And, generally speaking, non sequitur fallacies are assumed to have true or generally granted premises.[34] The fallacy of the undistributed middle term constitutes a typical example:

         Everyone wants to be happy.

         Virtuous people are happy.

         ∴ Everyone wants to be virtuous.[35]

         Obviously, there are nonvirtuous people who are happy as well.
         
         
      2. Historically, many logicians have characterized non sequitur as derived from, or the same as, Aristotle's fallacy of the consequent (fallacies of affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent), but this characterization is not generally accepted today.[36]
         
         
         
   2. Ordinary language arguments are commonly stated with a missing premise when the premise is assumed to be obvious. Such arguments are often mistakenly taken for a non sequitur. Consider the following argument from a critical reasoning textbook:

      “It is important that we provide our students with a quality education.”

      ---

      ∴ “We should require every student to study a foreign language.”[37]

      The author explains that since the premise is an irrelevant reason for the conclusion, it is an instance of the non sequitur:

      “There were no reasons given as to why studying a foreign language should be a required part of a quality education. The conclusion did not follow from the reason that was given.[38]

      Following Paul Grice's discussion of conversational implicature, if we have no reason to suppose a speaker is uncooperative, the speaker expects that it is within the competence of the listener to understand what was said. Since the listener has no reason to suppose the speaker violates the maxim to be relevant, the listener looks for ways the speaker's comments are relevant.[39]
      
      
      1. The implicit premise for the argument at issue which impartially suggests itself is the plausible assumption that foreign language study is a necessary component of a quality education. So, the argument can be translated as follows:

         Subjects necessary for a quality education should be required.

         [Foreign language study is a subject necessary for a quality education.]

         ---

         ∴ Foreign language study should be required.

         Translating in this manner is a normal application of the principle of charity.
         
         
      2. Both premises can be questioned , so the argument might not be considered sound, but on this analysis, the argument is not a fallacy of irrelevant reason or non sequitur.[40]
         
         
         
   3. Currently the narrow interpretation of the term ignoratio elenchi describes a putative refutation which proves or attempts to prove a statement or a thesis different from that which it claims to disprove, and, for that reason, this definition of ignoratio elenchi has a different scope of application from that of the non sequitur which describes any conclusion of an argument not logically following from its premises. In the broad sense of the term ignoratio elenchi as referring to any fallacy of relevance, both it and non sequitur have been characterized as “irrelevant conclusion.”
      
      
      1. A difference between the narrow version of ignoratio elenchi when it is a valid argument (whose conclusion is not required) and the non sequitur is that the non sequitur is always invalid. The irrelevance of a non sequitur stems from the relation of premises to conclusion, whereas the irrelevance in ignoratio elenchi lies in the mistaken conclusion established which is irrelevant to that which was supposed to be established.
         
         
      2. Alfred Sidgwick states, “[S]o long ago as Aristotle's time it has been pointed out that every case of Non sequitur may in one sense be viewed as Ignoratio elenchi.” [41].
         
         This course, however, follows the traditional view that non sequitur is one type of the general Aristotelian definition of ignoratio elenchi
         
         
         
5. A red herring fallacy occurs when attention is diverted, intentionally or unintentionally from the real question at issue by introducing an argument on a different subject leading to a topically irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant subject. [42]
   
   
   
   1. In disputations, the use of a red herring fallacy is an attempt to redirect attention away from an adversary's argument by proving an unrelated often stimulating conclusion or moving on to a different subject.
      
      
      1. The red herring fallacy developed outside of the logic tradition in the early 1800's and only appeared in logic textbooks fifty years ago with the development of the informal logic movement.[43] It is essentially a dialectical fallacy which is subsumable within the Aristotelian ignoratio elenchi ignorance of the refutation.
         
         
      2. The red herring fallacy differs from the straw man fallacy in that the opponent's argument or position is not misrepresented — the opponent's argument is simply abandoned.
         
         For example, consider this description of argumentative exchange:

         “Hillary Clinton was … at Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate. … When [former Maryland Gov. Martin] O'Malley criticized her for being too quick to use the military, Clinton responded: “You know, I have to say, I was very pleased when Governor O'Malley endorsed me for president in 2008, and I enjoyed his strong support in that campaign.”[44]

         Former Ambassador Clinton avoids the question on her position of when to use military force in international affairs with a rhetorical flourish of pointing out former Governor O'Malley had supported her candidacy in the past. As she diverts attention from the original question at issue, the fallacy of red herring occurs.
         
         
      3. The red herring is distracts attention from the argument under consideration by segueing to a different issue, often emotive, as a digression which misdirects the argument. For example:

         “Texting on a cellphone while driving is not a good idea, so the mayor wants City Council to adopt an ordinance … that would ban the practice in city limits. … Texting is a distraction, but so is ejecting a CD and searching for a new one to play. So is eating while driving. Shaving. Applying makeup. Talking. Reading the plethora of flashing and stationary signs that bombard us as we drive. … [W]e're not 100 percent sold on the idea this ordinance will have the net effect desired.…[45]

         The paper's editorial argues that since texting is only one of many kinds of distractions, a law forbidding texting while driving is unnecessary. The fact that texting on cellphones is a major cause of traffic accidents is ignored.
         
         
      4. Both the red herring and straw man fallacies occur commonly in the context of dialogue, discussion, and debate.
         
         
         
   2. If the “red herring” presents no argument, but confines itself as a diversion to a different topic, (as in the Clinton example above), then it should be considered a rhetorical distraction rather than a fallacy, if fallacy is to be considered as an incorrect argument or a logical rule violation.[46]
      
      
      
6. A straw man fallacy occurs when a locutor's argument or position is intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented[47] and then rejected as if it were the original argument at issue. So the result is that a different position from the one initially advanced is more easily assailed or refuted.
   
   
   
   1. The straw man argument begins with an argument to be refuted. Just as a constructed figure of straw is easily knocked down, so likewise an argument to be refuted is readily knocked down when misrepresented.[48] Historically, straw-man type arguments were traditionally subsumed under ignoratio elenchi as evidenced by examples provided in logic textbooks in the 18th and 19th centuries.
      
      
      1. As Marcin Lewiński and Steve Oswald write, “[T]he more the straw man’s content can plausibly be taken for what we believe its victim had previously uttered (and thus endorsed), the more it will be effective.”[49] The more closely the straw man's content is to the original argument, the more topically relevant it is to the original argument. If the interpretation is less charitable, the original argument is usually weaker in both topical and probative relevance since it may neglect qualifications in the original argument.[50]
         
         
      2. The fallacy of straw man often distorts the argument being attacked by reformulating the argument using another informal fallacy. Some authors wish to distinguish ways in which the argument at issue is reformulated in terms of weaker, stronger, more charitable, or different claims based on a pragmatic redefinition of a fallacy in terms of altering the course of a dialogue rather than as we use the term here as a inferential rule-violation.[51]
         
         
      3. The fallacy of straw man is often effected by misquotation of reasons or of conclusion since these points represent the essential parts of the argument under examination. Douglas Walton and Fabrizio Macagno point out “manipulation of quotation … can be carried out quite deceptively in ways that are hard for … an opponent to deal with effectively.”[52]
         
         
         1. Statements and phrases can be extracted from extended arguments and rearranged such that what is said is minimized, exaggerated, or altogether changed.
            
            
         2. Often a good indicator to a straw man argument is a beginning phrase similar to “They have given the argument …” or “Our opponent would have you believe …” and the like.
            
            
         3. Any thorough analysis of straw man argumentation needs to be from a dialogical rather than a monological perspective since the structure of the fallacy involves two opposing viewpoints.[53]
            
            
            
   2. Although the straw man argument is inherently dialogical, a monotonic version of the argument is often given in political speeches. It's termed here a “rhetorical straw man” argument since it begins with a locutor's disagreement with a misleading, attention-getting point of view, a disagreement also likely to be shared by others.
      
      
      

      Rhetorical Straw Man Argument

      Many (or some) people claim highly exaggerated standpoint x is the case.

      (Standpoint x is actually unqualified, extreme, or dubious.)

      ---

      ∴ Standpoint x is mistaken.
      
      
      This argumentative structure is a favorite of politicians, but it occurs in other forms of rhetoric and rhetorical writing as well.
      
      
      1. Consider the following two examples. The first is from a book of speeches on education by a former bishop of London:

         “There are some people who say that education is the dullest of all subjects, and that everything has been said about it that can be said. I do not think it is at all a dull subject except, perhaps, to those who are the objects of it. I believe that they at the beginning almost universally vote it to be dull.”[54]

         This particular argument is a common type of straw man argument; several logicians have suggested that this variety is a subclass of a secundum quid fallacy.[55]
         
         
      2. The second example from a speech, by the founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke is similar in structure:

         “Some people say, you ought to hate the crime and love the criminal. No, that is the language of false morality; you ought to hate the crime and the criminal, if the crime is of magnitude. If the crime is a small one, then you ought to be angry with the crime and reluctant to punish the criminal; but when there are great crimes, then you may hate them together. What! am I to love Nero? to fall in love with Heliogabalus?”[56]

         The problem of determining the exact position being opposed in such circumstances as these where the position is not explicitly stated elsewhere, of course, also arises in debate and dialogue as well. The best that can be done many times in such cases is to attempt to resolve an interpretation of the opponent's position with the opposition; nevertheless, all disagreements can be resolved.
         
         
         
   3. Misquotation as part of straw man argumentation is often used and is occasionally pragmatically effective in debate and other forms of argumentation because this stratagem shifts the burden of proof to the opposing party such that the point of the original overall argument is sidetracked.
      
      
      1. In trial closing arguments (summations), debate, and rhetoric, this maneuver should be avoided since as soon as the opposition corrects a misquotation, the bearer of the straw-man position appears as dishonest or careless to the jury, judge or audience.
         
         
      2. Preempting a straw man response: In fact, when presenting an argument in debate or elsewhere, it is judicious to safeguard an argument from anticipated misrepresentation by means of qualifications. Caroll Pollock Lahman provides this example of a qualification in a debate where the presenter is arguing that the use of a judge rather than that of a jury can ease the problem of judicial backlogs:

         “We do not claim that paneling a jury normally take days, but we do say that frequently there is needless expenditure of time and money.”[57]

         Not only does this practice help avoid misconstrual but also it helps present the argument with apparent impartiality.
         
         
         
   4. In contrast to an ignoratio elenchi, where the conclusion of an argument is intentionally misrepresented thereby enabling a straightforward refutation, a straw man argument intentionally (or even unintentionally) misrepresents the argument in order to insure artless refutation. It is this intentional difference which is sometimes used to distinguishing these fallacies.
      
      
      1. The ignoratio elenchi answers to the wrong point in a refutation; the straw man reconstructs a wrong argument in its rebuttal. Often in practice the distinction between ignoratio elenchi and straw man is dispensable.[58] In any case, whenever either fallacy is intentionally committed, the principle of charity is violated.
         
         
      2. However, Douglas Walton points out in reference to straw man (and, as well, ignoratio elenchi) interpretation of the premises or conclusion of the initial misrepresented argument should be by the principle of empathy rather than the principle of charity:

         “[T]he critic needs to take into account … his or her empathic reconstruction of the proponent's position, as far as the particulars of that position can be inferred, or reasonably presumed, in the context of the dialogue.”[59]

         Nonetheless, it's difficult to see how an empathic reconstruction of the proponent's argument can accurately capture the intentions behind its parts without distortion of the original presentation. It's best to stick with what is said rather than interpret what one feels should have been said. Pragmatic analysis of what is said includes context of presentation, relevance, and proponent's intention but need not include empathy for understanding what is said.[60]
         
         
         

6. Ignoratio elenchi is used as a “catch-all” classification for fallacies of irrelevance not properly classified under more specific fallacies of relevance.[61]
   
   
   Identifying fallacies of relevance such as ad hominem, ad populum, and so forth as ignoratio elenchi, although historically justifiable, is no longer done in contemporary textbooks.
   
   Many of these textbooks expand the traditional definition of ignoratio elenchi as arising from a misunderstanding of the proper way to refute the argument being contested.
   
   
   1. The ignoratio elenchi is often persuasive in oral political argumentation. Often listeners in such a venue are easily distracted by the confidence and resolve of a speaker. The fallacy is especially effective as a persuasive technique when coupled with the ad populum fallacy. The emotional situation in a crowd can often be distracting and can result in overlooking the logical import of what is said.
      
      
      
   2. Some Common Examples of Ignoratio Elenchi: There are many ways to evade a question. Some of the fallacious techniques to change or shift the focus of an argument are listed below together with a perfunctory example.
      
      It is essential to point out that these examples apply to short “one-off” arguments and do not necessarily apply to parts of overarching argumentation in support a thesis such as those found in essays, books, debates, trials, disputations, and the like.[62] A major disadvantage of the examples given in textbooks (and within these notes) is that most ignoratio elenchi occurrences are extended arguments, less identifiable than brief examples in textbooks and tutorials.
      
      Few logic texts point out that many instances of a purported ignoratio elenchi, when considered in the wider context of an extended argument not only can be relevant but also can effectively add inductive evidence to the elenchus or counter-thesis.[63]
      
      
      1. The purported argument attempts to prove a wholly different statement than that related to the question at issue. The essential terms of the claim are changed (i.e., an elenchi mutatio, “changing the question”). Here are two summary examples:

         (1) “Is the soul immortal? It is proved, or attempted to be proved, that the soul has not always been, and therefore, it is not eternal.” [italics deleted][64]

         That is, the original claim is not that the eternal soul is “infinite in past and future duration,” but that it is “infinite in future duration”[65]
         
         

         (2) “Those who deny the immortality of the soul on the grounds that ‘No dead man ever came back.’”[66]

      2. The responding fallacious argument attempts to prove an issue not denied or affirmed in the original argument. Example:

         “Thus, if a person should undertake to prove the existence of ghosts, and should only prove some unusual noises and appearances during the night, he would exemplify this kind of fallacy.[67]

         Rather than prove the existence of ghosts, mysterious occurrences are shown. Since these occurrences are not in question, the issue has been changed in accordance with the red herring fallacy.
         
         
         
      3. The given argument rhetorically provides an emotion or a sentiment rather than a real conclusion. Examples:

         (1) “Is the person at the bar guilty or not [?] … A counsel might prove the heinousness of the crime charged, the dreadful aggravations in this case, the need for making public example of such a wretch …”[italics deleted][68]

         These outcries miss the point of proving the accused's guilt.

         (2)“If a sophist has to defend one who has been guilty of some serious offence, which he wishes to extenuate, though he is unable distinctly to prove that it is not such, yet if he can succeed in making the audience laugh at some causal matter, he has gained practically the same point.”[69]

         In this case, the “fallacy” consists in “artful diversion” resulting in no conclusion of any kind.[70]
         
         
         
      4. The original argument is misrepresented by refuting only part of the topic: i.e., the refuting conclusion drawn is only part of what is required. A minor point is sometimes addressed, and the fallacious reasoner concludes the original view is completely overcome. Thomas Reid provides this example from John Locke's criticism of Nicholas Malebranche's metaphysical distinction between Idea and Sensation:

         “… Locke [neglects] the Cartesian opposition of Idea and Sensation altogether, been guilty of an egregious mutatio elenchi in his strictures of the Cartesian doctrine of Extension, as the essential attribute of body.”[71]

         Thomas Reid argues here that John Locke criticizes Malebranche by imputing to him a Cartesian doctrine Malebranche did not hold.
         
         
         
      5. The original argument is misrepresented by attempting to prove something more general than that which is required — the fallacious argument proposed in reply is only vaguely applicable in resolution of the controversy. Example:

         ”[E]ighty-seven Port Royal nuns refused to denounce [Jansenism] in spite of its condemnation by two papal bulls. … When Archbishop Pérefixe demanded that the nuns sign the formula … the nuns [stated] such matters were “above their profession and their sex.’ … [The nuns signed] the formula with this heading[:] they ‘espouse absolutely and without reserve the faith of the Catholic Church’[72]

         In effect, the nun's overarching statement implied to the Archbishop they were religious, not Jansenist, since the Archbishop viewed these beliefs incompatible. Yet, the nuns remained Jansenists since they viewed the beliefs compatible. The ignoratio elenchi here is accomplished by an equivocation between the nuns' and the Archbishop's definitions of the faith of the Church.[72]
         
         
         A second example: In a determinism–indeterminism debate, for a determinist to attack the elenchus “Not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes” by setting up the straw man as “No events are wholly determined by antecedent events” would commit the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.
         
         
         
      6. The issue under discussion is sidestepped by the irrelevant weighing of alternatives. E.g., a critic misrepresents the arguments of a locutor by raising a litany of collective objections or criticisms and concludes that the alternative issues are too complex for solution. Objections to almost any argument can be raised, but the crux is whether or not the objections are telling and are not simply rhetorical or whether or not other arguments outweigh those objections. The truth of a conclusion is not determined by the number of answerable objections that can be raised.[74] An example:

         ”Ilhan Omar is one of the four Democratic congresswomen of color who Mr. Trump told to ‘go back’ to their original countries. … [When] asked how he would feel if someone told the first lady, who is from Slovenia, to go back to her country [the president said] ‘Well if you go back into the four congresswomen, the things they've said about our country are terrible, what they've said about Israel are just terrible. … I don't know I can't say for sure but certainly a lot of people say they hate our country and I think it's a disgrace what they've said. … And then you have these people I think Omar I find it hard to believe but I hear Omar today put in or yesterday put in a sanctions bill against Israel and other things beyond sanctions. So when I hear that, you just can't talk about our country that way. And when people are angry at them I fully understand it.”[75]

         President Trump's ignoratio elenchi is bundled with an implicit ad populum, an ad hominem, and hearsay. Simply to point out the existence of objections is not a fallacy per se, but simply pointing out objections in the absence of counter objections to reach a default conclusion is fallacious. In public discussions or debates, raising objections can overwhelm an opponent since only a limited number of objections can be effectively answered within the time constraints.
         
         
         
      7. The contrary is erroneously thought to be proved from the falsity of the contrary of the point at issue. (Contrary statements can both be false but cannot both be true).
         
         Also, a fallacy occurs if it is thought that the failure of establishing a specific conclusion is proof of the opposite conclusion.

         “Maybe the two most famous opposing views on this debate are those of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes describes humans as ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’, needing society and rules to reign in their instincts in order to thrive; later Rousseau openly criticised him, arguing instead that man would be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the class system imposed by our society.”[76]

         An ignoratio elenchi would occur if from the falsity of Hobbes' belief, Rousseau concludes that people are essentially good. Both views could be false; that is, people neither innately are born good or bad.
         
         
         
      8. An argument shifts the grounds of the argument being examined and to some other more familiar subject.

         “When an opinion is propounded, we find people attacking it on the ground of its traditional character, its being nothing new, or its bearing, real or supposed, upon existing interests and institutions”[77]

         To say that an argument is not new or in antiquated is not to say that the argument is mistaken.
         
         This type of ignoratio elenchi can often be more narrowly defined as a red herring fallacy.
         
         Or, to take another example, many international and national leaders lament by means of example, the increase of ill-mannered speech among U.S. politicians. Such an argument is thought discounted by the contention that this contention is nothing new: foreigners have always referred to U.S. citizens of being discourteous and inconsiderate “ugly Americans.”
         
         
         
      9. The argument, in effect, disproves a statement which is not at issue:

         Thus, when in a discussion one party vindicates, on the ground of general expediency, a particular instance of resistance to Government in a case of intolerable oppression, the opponent may gravely maintain that ‘we ought not to do evil that good may come:’ a proposition which of course had never been denied, the point in dispute being ‘whether resistance in this particular case were doing evil or not.’”[78]

         Many people assume the truth of an aphorism in oral discourse since the evaluation of its appropriateness to the argument at hand would cause momentary inattention to the continuing discourse.
         
         
         
      10. The fallacy can occur when the elenchus is taken in narrow sense of the point at issue as in the theory of general utility in utilitarianism:

          “The theory … as expressed by Bentham, ‘the greatest good of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation’ … is converted into the execrable maxim that the good of the majority is alone to be consulted,”[79]

          The good of the majority and the good of the greatest number persons are not equivalent concepts.
          
          
          
      11. The fallacy can occur when a few objections are made to parts of the argument under examination, and this is claimed to show that the whole argument is mistaken:

          “Mr. William Jennings Bryan, for example, proved to thousands of persons that some of the alleged causes of evolution are not valid, but what he asserted he was proving (but failed to prove) was the falsity of the hypothesis of evolution. He inadvertently set up a straw man —he called it “Darwinism”—and demolished it completely.”[80]

          To defeat some sub-arguments locally does not refute the overarching argument globally. The success of such an argument depends on onlookers losing track of the stronger arguments in the opponent's position. This type of ignoratio elenchi is described as the “selection form” of a straw man argument by Robert Talisse and Scott F. Aiken.[81]
          
          
          
      12. The fallacy can occur when an opponent raises doubts about the argument: e.g., pointing out other factors not thought of as might being important, stating nothing can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt, raising the question of who can really say anything can be absolutely proved. The effect of inducing doubts is as Francis Bacon states, “Not to resolve, is to resolve, [an action].”[82] The import of the objection is that the question must be left open. Whately elaborates:

          “[W]ithout considering whether more and weightier objections may not lie against their own schemes … their opponents have this decided advantage over them, that they can urge with great plausibility, ‘we do not call upon you to reject at once whatever is objected to, but merely to suspend your judgment and not come to a decision as long as there are reasons on both sides:’ now since there always will be reasons on both sides, this non-decision is practically the very same thing as a decision in favour of the existing state of things; the delay of trial becomes the equivalent to an acquittal.” [italics original] [83]

          In this case, leaving open the question by raising doubts and questions shifts back the burden of proof to the objector. For example:

          Are these considerations really warranted? The objections are too many to enumerate here as they are many and weighty. Can such an argument be worthy of serious consideration? …

          And so forth.
          
          
          
      13. Finally, with respect to general positions of a doctrine, political position, ideology, or school of thought, particular conflicting less important tenets can be specially selected in order to to conclude that the general position is flawed. De Morgan points out this tactic in his discussion of fallacies:

          “Nothing is more common that to represent sects and individuals as avowing all that is esteemed by those who make the representation to be what, upon their premises, they ought to avow. … [I]t is not very uncommon to take one premise from some individuals … another from others, and to fix the logical conclusion of the two upon the whole party.”[84]

          Douglas Walton points out that “This is a subtle form of straw man fallacy that involves the notion of a subposition within a broader, or more inclusive position on an issue.”[85]
          
          
          
   3. In a legal context, many of these types of ignoratio elenchi arguments in response to claims are considered “nonresponsive.” [86]
      
      
      1. In law and as well as argumentative discourse, unresponsive testimony hinders the opposing party from an orderly presentation its case. In United States v. Schneiderman the court explained:

         “[T]o deny the questioning attorney the privilege of having non-responsive answer stricken [from the record] would make the course of direct examination infinitely more difficult and render cross examination virtually useless.[87]

         Of course, if facts are suppressed in the irrelevant response to questioning, opposing counsel can elicit the testimony in later examination.
         
         
      2. Also, to allow unsolicited testimony to stand is to increase the likelihood that a chronically nonresponsive witness will eventually say something prejudicial.[88] So likewise in dialectical argumentation or debate in the presence of an audience, irrelevant arguments can unfairly sway prejudicial opinion.
         
         
         
7. How to Identify and Analyze for Ignoratio Elenchi: Examples of Ignoratio elenchi in Personal Disagreements:
   
   
   1. As outlined above, the key for argument evaluation of ignoratio elenchi fallacies is the determination as to whether or not evidence or reasons used in the premises are relevant to the conclusion. Relevance in arguments is established by material evidential connections of the premises with the conclusion.
      
      So, one statement is irrelevant to another statement if and only if the first statement does not does provide evidence for or against the second statement.
      
      
      1. Consider how to assess relevancy in the following example based on the final release of the last hostage U.S. embassy diplomats and citizens imprisoned for over 14 months in Iran in 1981:

         “The 52 former hostages are seen as national heroes. I consider them survivors. A hero is one who is admired for his achievements and qualities. Therefore, the true heroes are those servicemen who volunteered for the failed rescue mission.”[89]

         Ms. Coyne's conclusion indicates that the 52 released U.S. hostages are not true heroes, but the servicemen who failed the rescue attempt are the true heroes. The “achievements and qualities” of the servicemen are due to their courage, nobility of purpose, and risk of life — not due to the outcome of the attempt. Similar qualities are attributed to the survivors who endured harsh conditions during imprisonment by the Iranians for over 14 months.
         
         
      2. Rather than directly proving that the 52 former hostages are not heroes, by means of misdirection, Ms. Coyne conceals the dubious assumption that the withheld hostages cannot be admired for their achievements and qualities since they are (just) survivors.
         
         The statement that the soldiers are heroes implies nothing whatsoever as to the “achievements and qualities,” i.e., the heroism of the survivor hostages and thus is evidentially irrelevant.
         
         
         
   2. In order to address and demonstrate the nature of the fallacy, the question at issue stated in argument form is compared side-by-side with the elenchus, or supposed refutation:

      “Refutations … must … be met by examining the conclusion in light of its contradictory and seeing how the same term shall be resent in the same respect and in the same relation, manner and time.” [Arist. Soph. El., xxvi.181a1-5 (trans. Forster)]

      For example, consider the following summary of a disagreement:

      [Medic]: “The man is unfit to travel, because he has a life-threatening fever.”
      [Captain:] ”The man is fit to travel, because he is a soldier.”[90]

      Comparison: “Being unfit to travel” is not necessarily connected with being a soldier but is necessarily connected with serious illness. So the statement that a man is a soldier does not obviate the statement that when seriously ill he is fit to travel.[91]
      
      
      
   3. On occasion, the lack of a clear and distinct response to an argument can lead to a charge of ignoratio elenchi. What follows is an example where a less than straight-forward apology became an incipient event in one thread of a complex conflict in the storied Kingsley-Newman controversy:
      
      Mr. Kingsley states in an article in a Macmillan's Magazine:

      “Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the whole ought not be …“[92]

      Dr. Kingsley responds in a letter to the magazine:

      ”There is no reference … to any words of mine … in justification of this statement. … I do wish to draw the attention … to a grave and gratuitous slander …

      To which Mr. Kingsley replies in a letter to Macmillan's:

      “Dr. Newman has by letter expresst, in the strongest terms, his denial of the meaning which I have put upon his words. It only remains, therefore, for me to express my hearty regret at having so seriously mistaken him.”[93]
      
      This should have been the end to the matter, but Dr. Newman expected the “slanderous” statement to be withdrawn. Instead, Mr. Kingsley's subtle response was seen as an ignoratio elenchi namely the regret that Dr. Newman had misunderstood the statement — not the regret that Dr. Newman had never made such a statement.
      
      From this point on, the disagreement only intensified as one of the greatest “ungentlemenly” controversies of the nineteenth century.
      
      

   4. Another example of the attempted use of an ignoratio elenchi to escape from being forced to accept either of the horns of a dilemma is that of the Burr-Hamilton duel which occurred in early U.S. history.
      
      Alexander Hamilton's use of ignoratio elenchi in his reply to a personal demand by Aaron Burr resulted, after a series of letters, in their fateful, tragic duel. Hamilton was charged to either acknowledge or deny Burr's evidence, based on a physician's letter, that Hamilton had voiced publicly a even more “despicable opinion” of Burr than that of being a ”a dangerous man” and a man ”not to be trusted with the reins of government.”[94]
      
      Hamilton's responding letter to Burr was noncommittal and evasive. Hamilton first summarizes the physician's letter and then attempts to deflect its import:

      “The language of Doctor Cooper plainly implies that he considered this opinion of you [i.e. you (Burr) being a “dangerous man”], which he attributes to me, as a despicable one, but he affirms that I have expressed some other [view] still more despicable [than that], without however mentioning to whom, when or where. ’Tis evident that the phrase ‘still more despicable” admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended or how shall I annex any precise idea to language so indefinite? …

      [I]t cannot be reasonably expected that I shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague as that which you have adopted. I trust on more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstance and must abide the consequences.”[95]

      Hamilton's evasive argument does not dispute Burr's conclusion; his ignoratio elenchi was an attempt to avoid both supplying a truthful response inevitably resulting in a duel and crafting a deceitful response wholly uncharacteristic of a gentleman. Unfortunately, the stratagem was unsuccessful.
      
      
      
8. Effectiveness of and How to Respond to an Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacy
   
   Often, the straw man argument is not effective, but on those occasions when the argument is presented to non-partisans unmotivated about the issues discussed, the argument can be somewhat influential.
   
   If a locutor is charged with committing an ignoratio elenchi, the locutor should restate precisely what the point of issue is, and then precisely state the conclusion of the elenchus. Finally the locutor should explain how the conclusion of the respondent argument (i.e., “the straw man”) does not contradict by the conclusion of the elenchus.
   
   
   
   1. George Y. Bizer et. al. studied whether college students are influenced a straw man fallacy, independently of whether the students were able to identify the fallacy.
      
      They found that some college students found the straw man effective but those with less motivation to understand the argument (and have attitudes less affected by its quality) were more likely to be influenced by it.
      
      
      1. The research suggested that the straw man technique is not as effective for students for whom the arguments had high personal relevance. The authors conclude:

         “In the current research, people who were motivated to process a message — due to disposition or situation — were not persuaded by the technique. … Although the straw man may be effective in some cases, it may actually backfire in others. Understanding the motivation of one's audience to carefully process the message, it seems, is of critical importance.[96]

         Hence, as a technique of persuasion, the use of the rhetorical ignoratio elenchi is to be particularly avoided in debate and dialogue whenever an audience has an especial interest in the topic.
         
         
      2. Thomas Vernon and Lowell Nissen write, “ If you base your opinion of an opposing ideology on an oversimplified and distorted version of that ideology which can easily be made to look ridiculous, then you are making the serious mistake of underestimating your opponent.”[97]
         
         
         
   2. As a pedagogical example of how to respond to an ignoratio elenchi, suppose after showing some pictures of swans and explaining that dominant white feathers help camouflage in snow and dominant black feathers help camouflage in open water, a naturalist concludes that this is one reason mature swan feathers around the world are predominately black or white in color.
      
      
      1. An objector states this argument is an ignoratio elenchi since the conclusion does not universally follow. Not all swans are either black or white. The South American cygnus melancoryphus or black-necked swan has a white body with a black head. So it's neither all-black nor all-white.
         
         
      2. The locutor points out reasons were given for the conclusion that feathers are predominately black or white, not for the conclusion that the entire plumage is black or white but not both. The locutor then might go on to clarify that in point of fact, all mature swans are mostly black or white or both black and white. No swan is entirely one color, and this actually enhances the camouflage. Even black swans have white flight colors, and white (mute) swans have a black feathers bordering its eyes and beak.
         
         
      3. This short example illustrates that in public discourse and debate, it is especially important to state clearly the point at issue, and the speaker should clarify in advance the limitations of the claim in anticipation of typical objections.
         
         
         
9. Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacy Examples: Practice for Fallacy Recognition.
   
   
   1. Read and analyze the following passages. whether or not you judge an ignoratio elenchi fallacy to be present in the following passages.
      
      
      1. “In 2016, the U.S. government announced that Harriet Tubman will become the face of the $20 bill. If you need proof that America can still get it right, there it is.”[98]
         
         
         
         
         
      2. “It is incredibly simple to gain body fat. In fact, it is so basic that it commonly happens without intent; even worse, it happens when a person is trying to avoid fat gain. Surely, if a problem arises so naturally and simply, the solution must be equally simple and natural.”[99]
         
         
         
         
         
      3. “Secretary of State John Kerry says that there is less violence than usual in the world right now. Meanwhile the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, says the opposite, that terrorism is more violent and dangerous than ever. Since Clapper is Director of National Intelligence, maybe Kerry should have the title Director of National Stupidity.“[100]
         
         
         
         
         

      4. “Five years ago, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered manufacturers of extended-release and long-acting (ER/LA) opioids to offer clinicians training on how to prescribe the drugs for pain to prevent patients from getting addicted or overdosing.

         Now the FDA is proposing an expansion of that educational mandate for opioid makers — to teach physicians how to manage pain with yoga, cognitive therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic, and other nonpharmacologic methods.

         ‘Nobody has overdosed from too much mindfulness,’ said Corey Waller, MD, who chairs the legislative advocacy committee of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), in an interview with Medscape Medical News.”[101]

         
         
         
      5. “You've probably heard the New York mayor has proposed a ban on selling supersized, sugary drinks. Here's what I want to respectfully say to Mayor Bloomberg: ‘Really?’ Terrorist cells might be lurking about and multiplying like bacteria on a dish sponge, homeless people are sleeping in alleys and Mayor Bloomberg is in a tizzy about Big Gulps being sold at the 7-Eleven?”[102]
         
         
         
         
         

      6. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has chosen to appoint women to half the positions in his Cabinet.

         Why did he do it? ‘Because it's 2015,’ the new PM said.[103]

         
         
         
      7. “Now, what else would stamp a murder as being a most atrocious crime? … It may be that the state's attorney would think that it was particularly cruel to the victim because he was a boy. Well, my clients are boys, too, and if it would make more serious the offense to kill a boy, it should make less serious the offense of the boys who do the killing.”[104]
         
         
         
         
         
      8. “My point is that scientists got obsessed with the Mediterranean diet in large part because it's a great place to go for scientific conferences.”[105]
         
         
         
         
         
      9. “The Trump administration is being sued over its plans to include a question about citizenship in the 2020 Census, which California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) says ‘is not just a bad idea — it is illegal.’ No, it's not. There is nothing wrong with asking about citizenship. Canada asks a citizenship question on its census. So do Australia and many other U.S. allies.”[106]
         
         
         
         
         
      10. ”We request your help in compiling a book which recalls memories from our parents' first 50 years of marriage. On the enclosed sheet, we ask that you write one memory or event that you have shared with them, and return it to us by April 25. We believe that loving memories they have shared with you, their friends, would be the most treasured gift they could receive; therefore, we request that no other gift be sent.”[107]
          
          
          
   2. Finally it should be noted that one reason for identifying an apparent fallacy as a ignoratio elenchi, rather than of identifying it as a specific informal fallacy, is that the reasoning provided is unclear, given the context of the argument.
      
      For example, the following passage can be plausibly analyzed in different ways depending upon how missing premises are supplied:

      “One after another of our leaders and heroes managed to shame himself in the past couple of decades. Americans have always been a little skeptical of politicians, but Bill Clinton (and too many others of both parties to name in recent years) invited outright contempt and disgust. Baseball players and world champion bikers admit to doping after vigorous and protracted denials. Best-selling historians and journalists are caught plagiarizing. Teachers are having sex with their underage students. Doctors are caught taking lewd photographs of their patients. The Secret Service uses prostitutes. The most decorated and esteemed military officer of our time is forced to resign as CIA director after a sex scandal. One of the most admired college football coaches in the nation is found to have kept silent about child abuse. The Catholic Church as been profoundly tarnished for failing to protect children from pedophile priests. So, for all of us, even the non-Catholics, it will be a tonic, and possibly even a little inspiring, if Pope Francis turns out to be just what he seems “a truly Godly man who lives out his faith.’” [108]

      From her list of contemporary leaders and heroes who have flawed character or behavior, the author suggests that it will be somewhat surprising to learn that the character of the newly selected pope will be different from the character of the other evidenced examples.
      
      
      1. One interpretation of the argument might be just to notice the biased selection of flawed leaders and flawed heroes (without consideration of honest and ethical leaders and heroes) and conclude the argument commits a fallacy of cherry picking or biased selection.
         
         
      2. The author might be presupposing that all of these examples point implicitly to the generalization as a subconclusion that most leaders and heroes are flawed. And then the author might be concluding from this that if the pope turns out to be an exception to that generalization, it will be unexpected. The fallacies of converse accident and accident might be plausibly argued.
         
         
      3. But since there is no clear connection or relevance of the kinds of leaders or heroes mentioned in the premises with respect to the leader of the Catholic Church, assuming the passage is argumentative, identification of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi seems appropriate.
         
         
      4. However, in the end, simply accepting what is said as the author's opinion and not the author's attempt to convince others of that opinion is perhaps the safest course. In which case, the “so” in the last sentence is not a conclusion indicator and the author did not intend the passage to be argumentative.
         
         
10. Test your understanding of ignoratio elenchi with these further examples:

    Ignoratio Elenchi Example Exercises

Notes: Ignoratio Elenchi

Readings: Ignoratio Elenchi