False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons

• Show that the similarities between the things being equated are exaggerated, overemphasized, or oversimplified.
• Highlight the differences between the things being equated. 
• Explain why these differences are more significant than related similarities.
• Provide counterexamples.
• Ask your opponent to justify why they believe that their equivalence is valid, and then demonstrate the issues with the reasoning they provide.

• Not every comparison is an equivalence; it’s possible to compare things without suggesting that they are equal to one another.
• Not every equivalence is false and can even be reasonable.
• Not every false equivalence is intentional.
• Equivalence is subjective; it’s not always possible to clearly determine whether a specific equivalence is false or not.

If you’re unsure about whether an equivalence that you’re thinking about is reasonable or not, try to highlight the differences between the things that you’re equating, and ask yourself whether the equivalence still holds.

It happens when there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, and you assume that the truth must rest somewhere in the middle. False balance can be a result of a false equivalence when two sides are presented as being equal, and the terms are used interchangeably, even though they are not.

For instance, in a group interview, equal weight is given to the opinions of two opposing interviewees, one of whom is an established expert, and the other a false authority with no valid credentials.