Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Rational arguments are beneficial since both parties feel convinced and satisfied about a given topic of discussion. However, it is common for parties to an argument to make mistakes that may encumber positive outcomes. Fallacies can be committed intentionally to manipulate and deceive a party to an argument. In some cases, fallacies are unintentional due to human limitations to ignorance and cognitive biases. In a strawman fallacy, a real subject of an argument is replaced with a false one.
The Fallacy of Straw Man
Valid and rational arguments are free from factual and subject manipulation. A fallacy is a failure in reasoning during a conversation, rendering the argument invalid. A strawman fallacy involves having an impression of refuting an argument by replacing the real argument’s subject with a false one (Macagno, 2022). Consequently, a straw man fallacy argument alludes to the defeat of the opponent’s position by covertly repalcing it with another one (Hinton, 2020). The fallacy is often applied to highly charged emotional subjects. In the UK, straw man fallacies are sometimes called Aunt Sally (Svedholm-Häkkinen & Kiikeri, 2022). Replacing an argument subject with a false one leads to an invalid outcome.
Distortion of the real argument subject is associated with various mistakes. A straw man fallacy is associated with the mistake of quoting an opponent’s argument out of context (Svedholm-Häkkinen & Kiikeri, 2022). Consequently, the opponent’s intended proposition meaning is changed, rendering their argument invalid. Additionally, commonly exaggeration of the opponent’s position to an absurd point is often done. The exaggerated argument becomes easy to attack, making the conversation and reasoning irrational (Macagno, 2022). Furthermore, there is a mistake of false attribution to the opponents. A straw man fallacy encumbers successful argument since one side argument is often misrepresented.
A straw man fallacy can be contrasted with other types of fallacies in various ways. The fallacy is different from the “apples and oranges” fallacy since the latter uses unsound comparisons with replacing the subject of an argument (Hinton, 2020). Meanwhile, ecological fallacy occurs when one draws an interpretation from data based on the premise that characteristics observed in a group is similar to an individual (Svedholm-Häkkinen & Kiikeri, 2022). Furthermore, unlike formal fallacies, a straw man fallacy originates from a flaw in reasoning, and not from the argument’s logical form (Hinton, 2020). Contrasted to other fallacies, the straw man fallacy is an informal one.
Various examples can be used to demonstrate a straw man fallacy. An example of a straw man fallacy is when an instructor says that literature tasks require more time to be completed by the students. A parent rebuttal by complaining that the teacher does not care about the technical subjects. In the scenario, the teacher is arguing for more literature and has not said anything about technical subjects. However, the parent has replaced the actual argument, more time for literature, with a false one, caring about technical subjects. In a straw man fallacy instead of directly disagreeing with the argument’s subject, one replaces it with another one.
Conclusion
Rational arguments are based on focusing on the real subject matter. However, in a straw man fallacy, the argument’s subject is either intentionally or unintentionally replaced with a false one. Quoting out of context, exaggerating, and misrepresenting the opponent’s proposition are common mistakes that are associated with a straw man fallacy. Unlike formal fallacies, a strawman is an informal one, originating from a reasoning error. Therefore, an argument containing a straw man fallacy can be valid, but rationally unpersuasive.
References
Hinton, M. (2020). Fallacies. Argumentation Library, 37, 97–108. Web.
Macagno, F. (2022). Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 67–82. Web.
Svedholm-Häkkinen, A. M., & Kiikeri, M. (2022). Cognitive miserliness in argument literacy? Effects of intuitive and analytic thinking on recognizing fallacies. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(2), 331–361. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.