Its pretty common to hear people say something like this in any argument (if you don’t know what a tied pub and pubco is don’t worry, replace with drink driving, Obamacare, or abortion as a appropriate):
“If anyone tries to suggest that maybe the pubco isn’t totally responsible for their failure as pub-running entrepreneurs, that person will be subjected to howls – screams – of outrage and fury… However, it’s clearly nonsense to suggest that the pubco model is responsible for every operator of a tied tenanted pub who goes belly-up”
The key point being no one is arguing every time a “tied” pub goes out of business it is the fault of the tied pub model, any more than every time a smoker dies, it is the fault of smoking. Just that the model is responsible for a lot of pub failures and is definitely part of the problem of massive number of pubs closing in the UK. He does go on to address this a bit more rationally later in the article, but the first half of the article seems to me a classic “straw man”, or something similar to it. Does this argument have a name? It seems pretty common (I could have chosen an example from pretty much any subject).
PS: A British A tied pub is one tied to a specific brewery (or pubco). The landlord rents the pub from the brewery and has to buy all their booze from the brewery. The rate they pay for beer and spirits is usually more than they could get over the road from the liquor store, rent can be increased at the brewery’s whim (typically if the landlord actually starts making a profit), and the lease includes many conditions (my local pub has a condition that they cannot sell a main meal for less that 10 quid). I’d be happy to start a thread in Cafe Society about this anyone wants to argue about this