Before judging an argument you must state it, often filling in unstated premises. How you fill them in matters. A twisted version is a straw man.
Key idea
The principle of charity: before judging an argument, state it in its strongest reasonable form, the way its author would accept.
Why it works
If you reject a weak version of an argument, you have learned nothing about the real one, and the author can rightly say you missed the point. Judging the strongest reasonable version means that if you still find it weak, your judgment counts.
Worked example: Restate fairly
Max says: "We should have less homework on weekends." Which restatement is charitable? (a) "Weekend homework should be lighter, so students have time to rest." (b) "Max thinks students should never do any work."
- (a) keeps Max's claim and gives it a sensible reason.
- (b) turns it into an extreme view he never stated.
Answer: (a).
Worked example: Fill the gap charitably
"The dog needs a bigger cage. It can barely turn around." Which premise fills the gap?
- Option: "An animal that can barely turn around in its cage needs more room." It links the premise to the conclusion and is easy to accept.
- Option: "Every animal should live in the biggest cage ever built." It is much stronger than needed and makes the speaker look silly.
Answer: The first.
Common mistake
Reading charity as agreeing. Charity is about understanding the argument fairly. After that, you may still find it weak, and you should say so.