The fallacy occurs when one distorts an argument by making it easier to attack.

Let’s examine the following example:

What follows is a summary of the arguments in the video:

My supervisor asked us to postpone the scheduled software upgrade because he heard about possible bugs and some compatibility issues. Obviously, he would like to stop us from upgrading.


Let’s analyze the arguments. You have two attempts to complete each item.

* 1. What is the supervisor’s claim? (Please select the best answer.)

  A. We should postpone the scheduled software upgrade.

  B. There are possible bugs and some compatibility issues with the new version of the software.

  C. We should stop the software upgrade.



* 2. What is the reason that the supervisor uses to support the position? (Please select the best answer.)

  A. We should postpone the scheduled software upgrade.

  B. There are possible bugs and some compatibility issues with the new version of the software.

  B. My supervisor would like to stop us from upgrading.



Let’s review the supervisor’s argument and present it in standard format:

  Premise/ reason: There are some possible bugs and compatibility issues with the new version of the software.

  Claim/ position: We should postpone the software upgrade.

The arguer (subordinate) tries to weaken the supervisor’s argument by turning the supervisor’s claim to the following: We should stop the software upgrade. In fact, the supervisor asked to postpone (not to stop) the upgrade. The subordinate’s distortion makes the supervisor’s argument easier to attack.