This paper investigates the role of French causal connectives that convey an attributive meaning for the acceptability of straw man fallacies. In three experiments, we assess the roles of: (1) linking the arguments with a connective vs. simply juxtaposing them; (2) using one causal connective over another (namely puisque vs. comme); (3) inserting the connective in sentence-initial or sentence-medial position. Our results indicate that using both attributive connectives decreases the acceptability of straw man fallacies.
