#15 - Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be

[bk1111]

Hello - I picked A while the correct answer choice is C. I was actually stuck between the two.

I understand the flaw: while Ruth is saying that diversity is REQUIRED to become a political, Steph misunderstands that she is saying it is enough, i.e. sufficient. Additionally, she mistakenly equivocates between being a politician and public trust.

How is A incorrect? I am thinking because it is not really "opposite" to what Ruth said...but I am still confused. I also just don't understand what type of flaw C is describing. I would appreciate any clarification. Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer A is incorrect for the exact reason you stated, bk1111 - Stephanie's position is not the opposite of Ruth's position! That would be something like "no, Ruth, a politician should actually not have diverse experience." She isn't saying that, but is only saying that experience isn't enough, more is needed. Perhaps she's saying the opposite of what she THINKS Ruth did, but she got that wrong.

Your analysis is right on the money, and perfectly describes a classic conditional flaw, a mistaken reversal. We should be looking for that in the answers, but surprisongly we won't find one! They played a little "hide the ball" on this one. We have to look at it another way.

Another way to describe Stephanie's response is to say she misstated Ruth's argument, getting her conditions mixed up. That'd be what we frequently call a "straw man" argument: twisting your opponent's words to make them easier to fight against. Usually we see that in the form of something a little more obvious, clumsy, and probably intentional; the author says "so what you're saying is" or "so if I understand you correctly", and it's pretty clear that's not what the other person was saying and the author either doesn't understand correctly or is purposely misstating the case.

Stephanie may be making an honest mistake here, or she may be intentionally misdescribing what Ruth said, but either way it's a form of straw man, and answer C describes that perfectly.

Let us know if that clears things up for you!

[bk1111]

Answer A is incorrect for the exact reason you stated, bk1111 - Stephanie's position is not the opposite of Ruth's position! That would be something like "no, Ruth, a politician should actually not have diverse experience." She isn't saying that, but is only saying that experience isn't enough, more is needed. Perhaps she's saying the opposite of what she THINKS Ruth did, but she got that wrong.

Your analysis is right on the money, and perfectly describes a classic conditional flaw, a mistaken reversal. We should be looking for that in the answers, but surprisongly we won't find one! They played a little "hide the ball" on this one. We have to look at it another way.

Another way to describe Stephanie's response is to say she misstated Ruth's argument, getting her conditions mixed up. That'd be what we frequently call a "straw man" argument: twisting your opponent's words to make them easier to fight against. Usually we see that in the form of something a little more obvious, clumsy, and probably intentional; the author says "so what you're saying is" or "so if I understand you correctly", and it's pretty clear that's not what the other person was saying and the author either doesn't understand correctly or is purposely misstating the case.

Stephanie may be making an honest mistake here, or she may be intentionally misdescribing what Ruth said, but either way it's a form of straw man, and answer C describes that perfectly.

Let us know if that clears things up for you!

This is very helpful, thank you!