Distorting opponent's position by bundling your own conclusions
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
This feels like a fallacy I've seen written about before. I see it all the time in sales and politics but I'd like to know if there's a name for it and if so what that name is.
It's essentially putting words into an opponent's mouth by saying you are in total agreement with them and then confirming and summarizing their position accurately but bundling in some additional words or details they probably wouldn't agree with. But because you've already agreed with them on so many of their points, they are reluctant to argue with you on the stuff you snuck in there.
Example:
Pat: "Cars have become more dangerous than ever with so many ways to be distracted. Cars should not be allowed to have any sort of displays visible to the driver, should not have navigation devices, and mobile devices should not function at all while you're in the vehicle because the driver's attention should be completely on the road and this should be strictly enforced with harsh penalties."
Sam: "I completely agree with you, Pat. I don't know how many more people have to die from distracted drivers before lawmakers do something to make displays not visible to the driver, satnav become a thing of the past, mp3 players become standard equipment, mobile phones not work while you're driving and even require auto manufacturers to incorporate small refrigerators in the center console so that drivers can easily reach for snacks and cold beverages. Lawmakers should act right away to do everything you just said to make the roads safer for everyone, especially not having displays visible to the driver. I couldn't agree with you more."
So in this example, Pat would obviously oppose the MP3 players and the minibar in the console but since they were disarmed and persuaded by Sam that they are correct and in total agreement, Pat starts to become open minded to the additional positions Sam snuck in and possibly eventually adopt those as their own position.
Is there a name for this and if so, what is it called?
Comments on Question
I believe you've correctly highlighted this as a matter of rhetoric more than a true fallacy. I've seen it a lot on blogs/sites of answers and opinions.
Q: How is Judith Curry wrong? is clearly proposed to get responses to cite her climate errors
A: Curry's error was to publicly challenge the received wisdom of AGW... is clearly a deflection and may be followed by contradiction of the premise of the question after first seeming to accept it
The loaded question might just as well be left unanswered, but sometimes one has to engage, and the rhetorical deflection is a useful technique.
Answers
2This appears to be a variation of the Hypnotic Bait and Switch.
I think that Sam is adding premises to expand a conclusion.
Visible displays redirects focus.
Not being focused on driving is dangerous.
Mp3 players minimize the use of visible displays. (Added)
Minibars minimize distractions from having to look for a drink in your car. (Added)
Therefore, having visible displays is dangerous while driving. Having Mp3's and minibars minimize dangerous driving.
Sam is saying that not being focused is bad but proposes more things as part of the solution. Adding a conclusion where the premises do not support it would be a non sequitur.
Example:
Having visible displays is dangerous for driving.
Therefore, we shouldn't have visible displays (the agreement) and not having them is safe for driving (added conclusion).
In the example, the conclusion does not follow because even though not having visible displays could help for safer driving, there could be other ways that makes driving dangerous; like being tired.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
It seems to me that the MP3 player part is a strawman, but I'm not sure. The description of a strawman on this site is:
Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument.
It certainly conforms with that, however it then goes on to give the logical form, which concludes with:
Therefore, claim Y is false.
A strawman is generally constructed to make it easier to argue against something, but I don't know if it has to be against. Perhaps Bo would care to comment.
The part with the cooler is not the same, as the person makes it clear that they are expanding on the idea by saying by preceding it with "even". If you don't agree with this you're not somehow compelled just because they agreed with what you actually said, just say that you don't see any reason for that.