What's wrong with this logic?

Paying rent, cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, cutting the grass, and changing a flat tire is not a flex. Most adults should be able to do these tasks. If that's all men/women have to bring to the table, that's pretty sad! One could say being able to fend off an attacker or robber trying to break into your house is a basic life skill, there’s no point in talking down things just because I can do it and you can’t.

It's kind of hard to tell what point this person is trying to make, especially given a lack of context. Given your recent posts, I'm assuming that this is something that was said to you when you were seeking relationship advice, but I could see how this could not be the case as well.

The most obvious issue I see is that "basic life skill" is a term that's used very similarly to "common sense." It's implied that it's self-evident that it's a thing that all or most people should know, but the definition is so nebulous that it allows people to shoehorn in whatever they want. On that initial list, nothing on it is terribly difficult to learn, but I wouldn't expect someone to know how to cut the grass if they never had a lawn, or change a flat tire if they never owned a car. In some cultures, including sections of American culture, cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry are considered to be a woman's job, so it's common for men to reach adulthood never needing to learn how to do these things. Which, in the context of relationships, leads to an important point. If a couple is living together, having a consensus on how domestic labor is going to be divided winds up being a fairly crucial part of the relationship. Knowing how to do these things is step one, but being willing to do your fair share on a consistent basis is an additional step that needs to be taken.

I would argue that fending off an attacker, while not a bad thing to know how to do, is not a basic life skill. Being attacked is highly unpredictable in when and how it will happen, and also a situation where you have to react instantaneously without stopping to think about it. There are no guarantees of success as there are some no-win situations, but standing a good chance requires extensive, specialized training, since most people rarely or never get a chance to test their capabilities in real life.

But, another crucial aspect of relationships in having a personality that meshes with your partner's. A person who's listing out their positive traits may overlook parts of their personalities that potential partners might find attractive. So, I think the list of skills here is being treated as an exhaustive list of positive traits, even though real relationship dynamics are more complex than this list captures.

And the question is?

The argument presented here contains a few logical issues and assumptions that merit examination:

1. **Equivocation**: The argument uses the term "basic life skill" ambiguously. At first, "basic life skills" refers to everyday tasks like paying rent, cooking, and changing a flat tire. However, the argument shifts to suggest that more specialized skills, such as fending off an attacker, should also be considered "basic life skills." This shift confuses the reader because it equates common tasks with more specialized, possibly less common skills without justifying why they are similarly "basic."

2. **False Equivalence**: The argument implies that because one set of skills can be learned and mastered by "most adults," another, arguably more niche or situation-specific skill, should also be easy and therefore not noteworthy. This is a false equivalence because the frequency with which individuals typically encounter the need for these skills differs significantly.

3. **Appeal to Common Practice**: The claim that "most adults should be able to do these tasks" suggests that because it is common or expected, it is not worth recognition or praise. This is an appeal to common practice, which assumes that if something is typical, it isn't noteworthy, ignoring the effort or circumstances of individuals who achieve these tasks despite obstacles.

4. **Implicit Value Judgement**: The statement "that's pretty sad" places an unsubstantiated value judgement on individuals who may not possess or excel in these "basic" skills. It fails to consider contextual factors such as varying life experiences, opportunities, and personal circumstances that might affect one's ability to perform these tasks.

5. **Strawman Fallacy**: The argument sets up a "strawman" by oversimplifying the motivations and capabilities of individuals who possess or lack these skills, suggesting that if these are their only skills, they are lacking in merit. This oversimplifies the complexity of individual achievements and contributions, ignoring other valuable skills or attributes those individuals might possess.

Overall, the argument weakens by failing to acknowledge the nuanced differences between basic, essential life skills and specialized skills, inadvertently creating misleading comparisons and value judgments.