Red Herring

In Informal Logic, Red Herring is an informal fallacy of relevance that occurs when someone introduces irrelevant information designed to distract from the issue at hand, or to divert the inference process to a fallacious conclusion.

Shifting the focus of the audience away from the issue under discussion; dodging the question; evading the issue.

For example:

The economic policies of the Republican Party are preferable to those of the Democrat party.
Just look at all the failed promises of the Obama administration after seven years;
they didn’t close Guantanamo Prison, Obama Care doesn’t work, and violent crime has risen in large cities like Chicago.
You should vote Republican in November.

Standard Form:

  1. The economic policies of the Republican Party are preferable to those of the Democrat party.
  2. The Obama Administration has not kept its promises:
    1. Obama did not close Guantanamo Prison
    2. Obamacare does not work
    3. Violent crime rates have risen in large cities.
  3. Therefore, you should vote Republican.

Note that premise 1 and sub-premises a-c, while related to each other and the conclusion, have no clear relationship to the thesis (that Republican economic policies are superior to those of Democrats). The evidence is irrelevant (though perhaps interesting) to the topic at hand. The arguer has introduced irrelevant premises to distract attention away from the thesis.