Question
Instructions: For each example, identify the specific fallacy of ambiguity (Equivocation or
Amphiboly) and clearly explain how the ambiguity leads to a fallacious conclusion.
1. The sign in the park said, "No dogs allowed on the grass." A man argues, "But I don't have a dog, I have a poodle!"
○ Question: What fallacy is the man attempting to use, and how does it rely on a misinterpretation of a word?
Amphiboly) and clearly explain how the ambiguity leads to a fallacious conclusion.
1. The sign in the park said, "No dogs allowed on the grass." A man argues, "But I don't have a dog, I have a poodle!"
○ Question: What fallacy is the man attempting to use, and how does it rely on a misinterpretation of a word?
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
The man is attempting to use the fallacy of **Equivocation**. This fallacy occurs when a key term is used ambiguously, leading to a misleading argument.
In this case, the word “dogs” is being interpreted in two different ways. The sign clearly states that “no dogs are allowed,” which refers to canine animals in general. However, the man tries to argue that a “poodle” is not a dog, playing on the fact that “poodle” is a specific breed of dog. He is relying on the ambiguity of the term “dogs” to create a distinction that does not exist in the context of the sign.
The ambiguity lies in the use of "dogs"—the man misinterprets it as being only a generic term that could exempt specific breeds rather than recognizing it as a rule applying to all dogs, regardless of breed. This misinterpretation leads him to erroneously conclude that he is allowed to have a poodle on the grass, which is not supported by the intended meaning of the sign.
In this case, the word “dogs” is being interpreted in two different ways. The sign clearly states that “no dogs are allowed,” which refers to canine animals in general. However, the man tries to argue that a “poodle” is not a dog, playing on the fact that “poodle” is a specific breed of dog. He is relying on the ambiguity of the term “dogs” to create a distinction that does not exist in the context of the sign.
The ambiguity lies in the use of "dogs"—the man misinterprets it as being only a generic term that could exempt specific breeds rather than recognizing it as a rule applying to all dogs, regardless of breed. This misinterpretation leads him to erroneously conclude that he is allowed to have a poodle on the grass, which is not supported by the intended meaning of the sign.
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!