In each of the following scenarios, a speaker's original argument is followed by a flawed rebuttal. Match each original argument to the rebuttal that commits a 'straw man' fallacy by explicitly exaggerating or distorting the speaker's original position.
- City Council Member: We should allocate a slightly larger portion of the parks budget this year to repair the aging playground equipment.Rebuttal: You cannot seriously propose that we completely eliminate all maintenance for our sports fields and hiking trails just to buy a few swings.
- Nutritionist: For optimal health, adults should try to limit their intake of heavily processed foods containing high amounts of added sugar.Rebuttal: It is absurd to suggest that everyone must adopt a strict, raw-vegetable-only diet and never enjoy a dessert again.
- IT Director: We need to implement a basic two-factor authentication system for employee email accounts to improve our network security.Rebuttal: It is completely unreasonable to demand that every single employee in the company undergo a daily background check and retina scan just to check their messages.
Cevap
Match the City Council Member's budget request to the rebuttal about eliminating all maintenance. Match the Nutritionist's dietary advice to the rebuttal about a raw-vegetable diet. Match the IT Director's security proposal to the rebuttal about background checks and retina scans.
Each correct pairing links a moderate, reasonable proposal to a rebuttal that attacks a wildly exaggerated or fundamentally distorted version of that proposal. This perfectly illustrates the structural mechanics of the straw man fallacy.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
A 'straw man' argument occurs when a speaker mischaracterizes, exaggerates, or oversimplifies an opponent's position in order to make it easier to attack or refute.