Relevance errors: human attack, position substitution, and question evasion

A replica can be true, witty, and important — and still not answer the question asked.

Scene: who said instead of what was said

— Delivery was counted twice in the estimate. — You yourself made a mistake in the calculations last month.

The answer may resemble a real error, but does not show whether the current estimate is correct. Attacking a person instead of an argument is called ad hominem.

Repair: «My past fallacies can be discussed separately. Now let’s compare two delivery strings».

Position substitution

— I suggest checking facts before publication. — It is impossible to forbid people from making mistakes.

The check requirement has turned into a promise of a complete ban on errors. This is a straw man: a weaker or extreme version of a position that is easier to attack.

Repair: first restate the thesis so that the author confirms it: «Did I understand correctly that it’s about a short checklist before publication?»

Theme change

— The product’s full price is not specified. — But we have the fastest delivery in town.

Fast delivery can be a virtue, but does not answer the question about the price. Such a distraction is called red herring, and the answer “it’s worse elsewhere” — whataboutism.

Repair: fix the question queue: first full price, then shipping comparison or competitors.

Authority, popularity and emotion

An expert’s testimony is useful if the question relates to their field, the position is accurately conveyed, the method can be verified, and other competent sources are not hidden. “A well-known person said so” is weaker than “here is the method, data, and area of uncertainty.”

Emotions are not forbidden. Fear, empathy, and anger indicate values and risks. An error occurs when a feeling replaces a response to an actual thesis.

Second example

If the study is correct, the usual product will have to be taken off the market. This is too unpleasant, so the study is incorrect.

Undesirable consequences do not affect the quality of the research.

Repair: check the research method separately and separately decide how to act with different results.

Honest Answer Map

1. Repeat the thesis.
2. Name the premise you disagree with.
3. Explain why it is insufficient.
4. Provide relevant evidence.
5. Return the strongest version of the person’s position.

Short practice

— A school needs an accessible entrance. — You just want all the expenses to grow uncontrollably.

Find the substitution, restore the original thesis, and suggest two appropriate questions.

Possible fix: «We are talking about one available entrance. Let’s clarify the requirements, number of users, solution options, and the cost of each».

Chapter Rule: check not the loudness of the answer, but its connection to the thesis. Information about a person, emotions, and consequences is important only when they change the quality of the required foundation.