What describes a "straw man argument"?

A "straw man argument" is characterized by presenting a weakened or distorted version of someone else's argument, making it easier to attack or refute. In this case, selecting the option that describes a weak interpretation of an argument aligns with the definition of a straw man. When someone uses a straw man tactic, they misrepresent the original argument to create an argument that is more straightforward to dismantle. This technique is frequently employed in debates to gain an advantage by oversimplifying or mischaracterizing an opponent's position, rather than addressing the actual argument being made.

The other choices do not accurately capture the essence of a straw man argument. A strong rebuttal of an argument is the opposite of what a straw man presents, as it engages with the actual points rather than distorting them. An ethical perspective based on political systems doesn’t pertain to logical fallacies or argumentation methods. Similarly, a personal quality aiding in ethical decision-making also does not relate to the nature of argument structures. Thus, the identification of a straw man as a weak interpretation underscores the manipulative strategy often utilized in argumentation, highlighting its relevance in debates.