Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardStraw Man

Director: To adequately secure our planetary defense network, we must reallocate 15 percent of the agency's current satellite development funds away from deep-space exploratory probes and dedicate that capital entirely to near-Earth asteroid detection systems. Unidentified near-Earth objects currently represent the most immediate existential threat to our planet.

Astrophysicist: That is a catastrophically short-sighted policy. If we abandon all deep-space research, our technological edge in interstellar navigation will collapse, and our quest to understand the origins of the universe will be permanently halted.

Which of the following statements accurately describe how the astrophysicist's response distorts the director's initial argument? Select all that apply.

  1. The response exaggerates a recommended partial reduction in a specific program's budget into a complete termination of that program.Answer
  2. The response disregards the explicit quantitative limitation the director places on the proposed resource shift.Answer
  3. C
    The response shifts the meaning of the concept of 'existential threat' midway through the rebuttal to attack a different issue.
  4. D
    The response attempts to dispute the core disagreement by focusing on the director's underlying motives for protecting the planet rather than the policy itself.
  5. E
    The response introduces external facts about interstellar navigation to directly contradict the director's premise regarding near-Earth objects.

Answer

The correct statements recognize that the astrophysicist takes a modest, strictly quantified proposal (shifting 15 percent of funds) and inflates it into an extreme, absolute position (abandoning all deep-space research).
The correct options accurately describe the mechanics of the 'Straw Man' fallacy occurring in this specific dialogue. The director explicitly limits the funding change to a partial reduction (15 percent), but the astrophysicist argues against the catastrophic effects of halting 'all' deep-space research—a much extreme position that the director never advocated.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the director's original argument.
The director proposes reallocating exactly 15 percent of funds away from deep-space probes to address an immediate threat.
Establishing the precise boundaries of the initial claim is necessary to identify how it is later distorted.
2
Analyze the astrophysicist's rebuttal.
The astrophysicist attacks the consequences of 'abandoning all deep-space research.'
Comparing the rebuttal to the initial claim reveals the logical gap or fallacy.
3
Identify the nature of the logical mismatch between the two statements.
The astrophysicist mischaracterizes a limited 15 percent reduction as a 100 percent elimination (a Straw Man flaw).
This specific exaggeration makes the director's position appear far more radical and easier to attack.

Key Concept

Straw Man
Rate this question

Topics

Straw Man

More questions from this topic