Instructions: For each example, identify the specific fallacy of ambiguity (Equivocation or

Question

Amphiboly) and clearly explain how the ambiguity leads to a fallacious conclusion.
3. A philosopher states, "Only man is rational. Women are not men. Therefore, women are not rational."
○ Question: Identify the fallacy in this argument. Explain how the multiple meanings of a key term lead to the fallacious conclusion.

Answer 1

The fallacy in the argument is Equivocation.

In the statement, the term "man" is used ambiguously. In the first premise, "Only man is rational," the term "man" can be interpreted as referring to humanity in general (i.e., human beings, including both men and women). However, in the second premise, "Women are not men," the term "man" is interpreted in its more restricted sense as referring specifically to male individuals.

This equivocation leads to the fallacious conclusion that "women are not rational." The argument incorrectly assumes that because women are not "men" (in the male-specific sense), they must therefore also not be rational. This conclusion is based on a shift in the meaning of the term "man," leading to confusion and a false inference.

Thus, the ambiguity surrounding the term "man" results in a misapplication of the premise, ultimately causing the flawed conclusion. The argument fails to recognize that rationality is a defining characteristic of humans as a whole, not just a characteristic exclusive to one gender.