← Back to archive

Changing the conclusion or argument

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question
What would the fallacy be called for suggesting a conclusion that the original person didn’t suggest. Example:
Person 1 states “according to the Bible, one should not deny their spouse sex.”
Person 2 “ How dare you suggest that you the right to rape your spouse.”

Answers

2
This would be a Strawman . Person 2 took what person 1 said and twisted it into a version that could easily be argued against.

To avoid this fallacy, person 2 should let person 1 come to that conclusion themselves. For example,

Person 1: According to the Bible, one should not deny their spouse sex.
Person 2: Does that mean, for example, that if the wife does deny the husband sex that the husband has the right to have sex with her anyway?
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: Isn't having sex with someone without their consent, rape?
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: So you are suggesting that one has the right to rape their spouse?
Person 1: Shit. I better rethink my beliefs.

If person 1 said "no" to the first question, then person 2 would be out of line to suggest the conclusion they did.
that would be a misrepresentation of the argument and therefore a strawman.
Book

Want the full book?

Get the complete guide to logical fallacies by Bo Bennett.

Buy the Book

Master Logical Fallacies Online

Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.

View Online Course