What characterizes a "straw man" argument?

What characterizes a "straw man" argument?

• A. Building an argument based on strong evidence
• B. Attacking a distorted version of the opponent's argument
• C. Supporting an argument with irrelevant evidence
• D. Engaging in logical reasoning with no fallacies

Answer: (B)

A "straw man" argument is characterized by attacking a distorted version of the opponent's argument rather than addressing the actual point they are making. This technique involves misrepresenting or simplifying an opponent's stance in such a way that it can be easily refuted. By doing this, the person using the straw man tactic avoids engaging with the actual complexities or nuances of the debate. This method can be effective in persuading an audience, as it creates the illusion of a strong counterargument. Instead of refuting genuine concerns or positions, the straw man argument diverts the conversation to an easier target, which often leads to misunderstandings and confusion about the real issues at hand. In contrast, building an argument based on strong evidence reflects a well-supported and credible position, which is not a characteristic of a straw man. Supporting an argument with irrelevant evidence diverges from the focus on distorting an opponent's view, and engaging in logical reasoning with no fallacies signifies a level of discourse that exceeds the tactics of a straw man, which relies on the misrepresentation of arguments.

A "straw man" argument is characterized by attacking a distorted version of the opponent's argument rather than addressing the actual point they are making. This technique involves misrepresenting or simplifying an opponent's stance in such a way that it can be easily refuted. By doing this, the person using the straw man tactic avoids engaging with the actual complexities or nuances of the debate.

This method can be effective in persuading an audience, as it creates the illusion of a strong counterargument. Instead of refuting genuine concerns or positions, the straw man argument diverts the conversation to an easier target, which often leads to misunderstandings and confusion about the real issues at hand.

In contrast, building an argument based on strong evidence reflects a well-supported and credible position, which is not a characteristic of a straw man. Supporting an argument with irrelevant evidence diverges from the focus on distorting an opponent's view, and engaging in logical reasoning with no fallacies signifies a level of discourse that exceeds the tactics of a straw man, which relies on the misrepresentation of arguments.