Which argument tactic is used to suggest an extreme consequence of a simple request?

Which argument tactic is used to suggest an extreme consequence of a simple request?

• A. Attacking a Straw Man
• B. Leading Question
• C. Diversion
• D. Disproving a Minor Point

Answer: (A)

The tactic utilized to suggest an extreme consequence of a simple request is known as “Attacking a Straw Man.” This method involves misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. In this context, the tactic creates an exaggerated scenario or consequence that is not a legitimate outcome of the request. For example, if someone asks to implement a simple policy change, an opponent might respond by saying that such a change would lead to disastrous consequences such as chaos or total failure, which illustrates an extreme interpretation of the initial request. This manipulative technique distracts from the real issue and shifts the conversation to an exaggerated consequence that can be easily criticized. Utilizing this tactic can effectively persuade an audience by instilling fear or concern over the improbable outcomes, rather than engaging with the substance of the original proposal.

The tactic utilized to suggest an extreme consequence of a simple request is known as “Attacking a Straw Man.” This method involves misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. In this context, the tactic creates an exaggerated scenario or consequence that is not a legitimate outcome of the request.

For example, if someone asks to implement a simple policy change, an opponent might respond by saying that such a change would lead to disastrous consequences such as chaos or total failure, which illustrates an extreme interpretation of the initial request. This manipulative technique distracts from the real issue and shifts the conversation to an exaggerated consequence that can be easily criticized.

Utilizing this tactic can effectively persuade an audience by instilling fear or concern over the improbable outcomes, rather than engaging with the substance of the original proposal.