The Straw Man Flaw on the LSAT: Attacking a Position You Made Up

A straw man flaw happens when an argument responds to a distorted, weakened, or exaggerated version of an opponent's position rather than the actual position. By making the opponent appear to hold a more extreme or absurd view than they actually do, the arguer can easily "defeat" that version — while the real position remains untouched.

The name comes from the idea of building a flimsy "straw man" instead of engaging the real adversary. Defeating a straw man looks like winning an argument without actually winning it.

On the LSAT, straw man flaws appear most often in two-speaker dialogues or in arguments that describe someone else's view before arguing against it.

The argument contains three moves: (1) the arguer describes an opponent's position, (2) the described position is subtly different from — and weaker or more extreme than — what the opponent actually said, and (3) the arguer defeats the distorted version.

The flaw is in step 2. The refutation in step 3 may be perfectly valid against the distorted version. The problem is that the actual opponent never held that distorted position, so the refutation does not touch the real argument.

Opponent's actual position: "The city should consider expanding bicycle infrastructure in busy commercial districts."

Arguer's response: "My opponent believes cars should be completely banned from the city. This is unrealistic — many residents depend on cars for work and childcare. So this proposal should be rejected."

The original position said nothing about banning cars. It proposed expanding bicycle infrastructure. By substituting "ban all cars" for "expand bike lanes," the arguer defeats a position that was never made and leaves the actual proposal unaddressed. That is the straw man.

On flaw questions, the correct answer will say something like "distorts the opposing position and then attacks the distortion" or "misrepresents the view it is arguing against."

The key question: does the arguer accurately characterize the opponent's position before refuting it? If the rebuttal responds to exactly what the opponent said — or a fair and charitable interpretation of it — it is not a straw man.

If the rebuttal introduces an extreme version, an oversimplification, or an obvious distortion that the opponent never endorsed, it is a straw man.

On the LSAT, you will often need to check whether the opponent's actual words (in a dialogue format) match what the second speaker claims they believe. A mismatch is the flaw.

Verbloom's two-speaker stimulus drills make this check automatic — you compare the first speaker's actual claim to the second speaker's characterization before evaluating the response.

The straw man is one of the less frequent named flaws on the LSAT, partly because it requires the stimulus to include both an original position and a response to it. When it does appear, it is worth easy points if you know the pattern — because the distortion is usually visible once you look for it.

Straw man answers on flaw questions are also less likely to be confused with other flaws. The answer will uniquely describe misrepresentation, which is a distinctive error the other common flaw types do not share.