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.
4. During a debate, someone asserts, "We should all support freedom of the press.
Therefore, journalists should be free to publish anything they want, regardless of its truthfulness or potential harm."
○ Question: What fallacy of ambiguity is being committed here? How does the broad term "freedom of the press" become ambiguous in this context?

Answer 1

The fallacy being committed here is Equivocation.

In this case, the term "freedom of the press" is used ambiguously. Initially, it might be understood as a fundamental principle that supports the ability of journalists to investigate and report the truth without censorship. However, the conclusion drawn—that journalists should be free to publish anything they want, regardless of truthfulness or potential harm—takes a different, more extreme interpretation of "freedom of the press."

The ambiguity arises because the original assertion implies a responsible exercise of freedom that balances the right to publish with the ethical considerations of truth and potential harm. By contrast, the conclusion conflates this right with an unfettered freedom that disregards accountability and standards of truth. Thus, by using the same phrase "freedom of the press" in two distinct ways, the argument leads to a fallacious conclusion that misrepresents the principle of responsible journalism.