FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

This fallacy is committed when a key word or

phrase is used with two or more different
meanings in the same argument.

Example : I want to have myself a merry little
Christmas, but I refuse to do as the song
suggests and make the yuletide gay. I don't
think sexual preference should have anything
to do with enjoying the holiday.
Example 2 :

The signboard says "fine for parking here
". A driver notices the signboard and reasons
as follows: "Since it is fine. I will park my
vehicle here."

Amphiboly
This fallacy occurs when one is arguing from
premises whose formulations are ambiguous
because of their grammatical construction.

A fallacy that relies on an ambigous word or
grammatical structure to confuse or mislead
an audience.



Example
A reckless motorist Thursday struck and
injured a student who was jogging through
the campus in his pickup truck. Therefore, it is
unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.

Accent
Emphasis is used to suggest a different
meaning from the actual proposition
When a shift of meaning arises within an
argument as a consequence of changes in the
emphasis given to its words or parts

Example
1. Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.
Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments
late.

2. The first mate, seeking revenge on the
captain, wrote his journal,
The Captain was sober today.


COMPOSITION
The fallacy of Composition is committed when a
conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the
features of its constituents when, in fact, no
justification provided for the inference.


TWO KINDS OF COMPOSITION
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises
when a person reasons from the characteristics
of individual members of a class or group to a
conclusion regarding the characteristics of the
entire class or group (taken as a whole).
Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C,
etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has
characteristics A, B, C, etc.

A strand of rope is weak, and cannot possibly
support the weight of a full-grown person. A
rope is nothing but a collection of weak
strands. Therefore, a rope cannot possibly
support the weight of a full-grown person.
The second type of fallacy of Composition is
committed when it is concluded that what is
true of the parts of a whole must be true of
the whole without there being adequate
justification for the claim.
Reasoning from attributes of the individual
elements or members of a collection to
attributes of the collection or totality of those
elements

DIVISION
It is the reverse of the fallacy of composition.
TWO KINDS :
Arguing fallaciously that what is true of a
whole must also be true of its parts
When one argues from the attributes of a
collection of elements to the attributes of the
elements themselves
Examples :
A rope is strong, and can easily support the weight
of a full-grown person. A rope is nothing but a
collection of individual strands. Therefore, a strand
of rope is strong, and can easily support the weight
of a full-grown person.
Explanation: This argument is fallacious because it
assumes that each composite part of a rope (a
strand) must share an attribute possessed by the
rope as a whole (strength). Note that this fallacy is
the mirror image of the fallacy of composition.

Example of A.2:
The spotted owl is disappearing. This animal is
a spotted owl. Therefore, this animal is
disappearing.