Strawman vs. Equivocation Flaws

[Gracejk]

Hey Guys!

First time posting, so hopefully this is the correct way to do it, haha.

What is the difference between a Strawman flaw and an Equivocation flaw? More specifically in instances where two parties are in disagreement, how would I spot out the misuse of the contextual meaning of a term/central idea (Equivocation), with that of a misinterpretation of the original speaker's position (Strawman)?

In strawman flaws, would that not entail in some regard, the misuse of terms as well?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Grace,

Strawman arguments involve the deliberate distortion or exaggeration of another person's argument in order to make that distorted version easier to attack. Often, these arguments begin with phrases such as "If I understand you correctly" or "What you're saying is" followed by a misrepresentation of the first person's argument. This need not, and usually does not, involve the flaw of equivocation. Instead, it is simply an exaggeration/distortion of an idea or statement.

Here's an example:

Person A: I value more individual freedoms and less government control.
Person B: What you're saying is that you're in favor of total anarchy!

Equivocation is when a particular word shifts meaning within one person's argument, but the argument is treating the word as if it has the same meaning. In other words, the person making this flaw may not even realize that the flaw is happening. While this can happen while two people are disagreeing, it usually occurs within a self-contained argument. Often, the best way to spot this flaw is to find the two uses of the particular word and substitute synonyms for each use.

Here's an example:

I have the right (meaning entitlement) to eat junk food. Therefore, it is right (meaning morally correct, proper) that I eat junk food.

One last point to remember is that both of these flaws are very rare as correct answers on the LSAT, so they are far more likely to appear as wrong answers.

[Gracejk]

Hi Jeff!

Thanks so much for getting back to me on my question - I appreciate the detailed breakdown of the differences between the two flaw types.

A couple of things for more clarity:

1. When you suggest the best way to spot an equivocation flaw is via substituting synonyms, you mean to consider the term's meaning with the statement, relative to the subject at hand?

Going back to your example on junk food, would that be to read the term relative to the context of the first sentence (it's inference on entitlement). Likewise the same for the second sentence (it's inference to morality)?

2. Could you please expand a little more when you say that such flaws often appear as wrong answers?

[Dave Killoran]

Responding to just #2 here, answers like these (and others, like Circular Reasoning) more often appear as wrong answers than right answers. That doesn't mean these answers are never right--they certainly are at times--they just are wrong 8 or 9 times out of 10 when you see them.

The good news is that once you learn how these work, you can very often quickly identify if they are present or not, allowing you to move even faster with more confidence.

Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Grace,

Responding to #1, that's exactly right. For better or worse, words often have multiple meanings and using the same word in two different ways within the same argument is problematic, especially when the argument's reasoning relies on the word having the same meaning to make any sense.

Substituting synonyms (or brief definitions) for each use the word based on its context within the argument should show the gap in logic.

If I swap each of the uses of the word "right" in the junk food example posted above with synonyms, it would look like this.

I have the legal entitlement to eat junk food. Therefore, it is morally correct that I eat junk food.

It should be clear that this argument is flawed. Legal entitlement (i.e. one's legal rights) is not the same as what is morally correct or proper. However, in the original argument, since both of the different concepts are expressed with the same word "right," it can be easy to miss the shift in logic.

Here's another example that is similar to a question that has appeared on the LSAT.

The Treasurer says that we cannot afford to build the new bridge. But to that I respond, "Can we afford not to?"

The first use of the word "afford" refers to "having enough money to pay for something." The second use of the word means "to be able to do something without risk of adverse consequence." While this may seem like a good comeback at first, it doesn't address the Treasurer's point that they literally cannot pay for the new bridge (i.e. there is not enough money in the budget.) As with the other example, it can be easy to miss the shift in logic between the two different ways the word "afford" is used.

[Gracejk]

Responding to just #2 here, answers like these (and others, like Circular Reasoning) more often appear as wrong answers than right answers. That doesn't mean these answers are never right--they certainly are at times--they just are wrong 8 or 9 times out of 10 when you see them.

The good news is that once you learn how these work, you can very often quickly identify if they are present or not, allowing you to move even faster with more confidence.

Thanks!

Hi Dave!

Thanks for getting back to me - Ahh I see. That makes sense for sure.

Reminds me of a question I just practiced this morning, and the answer I needed required having the term "mediocre", but instead was written as follows: "It is better for a society to avoid the inherently worst than to seek the best" (the last part about the best nearly got me) ; AKA Mediocre, haha.

Cheers,
Grace

[Gracejk]

Hi Grace,

Responding to #1, that's exactly right. For better or worse, words often have multiple meanings and using the same word in two different ways within the same argument is problematic, especially when the argument's reasoning relies on the word having the same meaning to make any sense.

Substituting synonyms (or brief definitions) for each use the word based on its context within the argument should show the gap in logic.

If I swap each of the uses of the word "right" in the junk food example posted above with synonyms, it would look like this.

I have the legal entitlement to eat junk food. Therefore, it is morally correct that I eat junk food.

It should be clear that this argument is flawed. Legal entitlement (i.e. one's legal rights) is not the same as what is morally correct or proper. However, in the original argument, since both of the different concepts are expressed with the same word "right," it can be easy to miss the shift in logic.

Here's another example that is similar to a question that has appeared on the LSAT.

The Treasurer says that we cannot afford to build the new bridge. But to that I respond, "Can we afford not to?"

The first use of the word "afford" refers to "having enough money to pay for something." The second use of the word means "to be able to do something without risk of adverse consequence." While this may seem like a good comeback at first, it doesn't address the Treasurer's point that they literally cannot pay for the new bridge (i.e. there is not enough money in the budget.) As with the other example, it can be easy to miss the shift in logic between the two different ways the word "afford" is used.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for getting back to me! That makes a lot of sense.

I appreciate the second example and the breakdown of it too; it also seems to be a great idea - during practice - to see the terms directly in their synonyms if I'm faced with such questions, so I can get the hang of them.

Many Thanks,
Grace