FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY

By:

Rechelle M. Quiban
Jessa Reen T. Pucan
Nards
 Fallacy of Ambiguity
Definition
A kind of fallacy in which the meaning of a word
or phrase shifts within the course of an argument.

Sometimes “sophisms”

The mistaken arguments are formulated in such

a way as to rely on shifts in the meaning of words
or phrases, from their use in the premises to their
use in the conclusio; a term may have one sense
in a premise but quite a different sense in the
conclusion.
 KINDS OF FALLACY OF
AMBIGUITY

EQUIVOCATION
AMPHIBOLY
ACCENT
COMPOSITION
DIVISION
 1. EQUIVOCATION
It is a kind of fallacy of ambiguity that occur when
the meaning of an ambiguous term is covertly
switched during the reasoning.
Most of the word have more than one literal
meaning and is often used but when we confuse
several meaning of a word or, phrase accidentally we
are using the word equivocally. If we do in the
context of an argument we called the fallacy of
equivocation.
An equivocation trades upon the use of an
ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in
one of the propositions of an argument but also in
another of its meanings in a second proposition.
 EQUIVOCATION
For Example:

1.) A feather is light.

2.) What is light cannot be dark.
3.) Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

In premise, the word “light” is used to mean

not heavy and middle term “light” is used as
optical sense. The two words are unrelated
therefore, conclusion is spurious.
 EQUIVOCATION
Another Example:

1.) Really exciting novels are rare.

2.) But rare books are expensive.
3.) Therefore, Really exciting novels are
expensive.

Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two

premises of the argument, so the link they seem to
establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious.
In its more subtle occurrences, this fallacy can undermine
the reliability of otherwise valid deductive arguments.
 ABS-CBN v. World Interactive Network
Systems
Gr. No. 169332

The ABS-CBN Case committed the

classic fallacy of equivocation. It
equated the term "voluntary arbitrator"
used in Rule 43, Section 1 with the term
"arbitrator/arbitration tribunal."
 2. AMPHIBOLY
Amphiboly is a Greek Word meaning two in a
lump or the doublings of lump.
A statement is amphibious when its meaning is
indeterminate because of loose way in which its
words are combined.
Fallacy of amphiboly occurs when syntactic
ambiguity allows one meaning to be used in the
premise and another in the conclusion.
The fallacy is similar to the equivocationbut
exploits an ambiguous grammatical construct
rather than ambiguous word.
Amphiboly can be used to create a jokes.
 2. AMPHIBOLY
Example:

“I shot an elephant in my pajamas”

These are consequential when it appear in

policy document or legal documents.

An amphiboly can occur even when every

term in an argument is univocal, if the
grammatical construction of a sentence
creates its own ambiguity.
 2. AMPHIBOLY
Another 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.

In this example, the premise (actually heard on

a radio broadcast) could be interpreted in different
ways, creating the possibility of a fallacious
inference to the conclusion.
Another example:

“Slow Men at Work.”

Without ambiguity: “Slow: Men at

Work”

Here, proper punctuation makes all the

difference.
 3. ACCENT
The fallacy of accent arises from an
ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or
written emphasis.
When an argument relies on the meaning of
the same word emphasized differently.
When a premise relies for its apparent
meaning on one possible emphasis but a
conclusionis drawn that relies on the meaning
of the same word accented differently.
 3. ACCENT
Example:

Jorge turned in his assignment on time

today.
Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his
assignments late.

Here the premise may be true if read without

inflection, but if it is read with heavy stress on
the last word seems to imply the truth of the
conclusion.
CASE
 4. COMPOSITION

The fallacy of composition involves an

inference from the attribution of some feature
to every individual member of a class (or part
of a greater whole) to the possession of the
same feature by the entire class (or whole).
 The logical form of the Fallacy of
Composition is:
Premise 1: A is part of B

Premise 2: A has property X.

Conclusions: Therefore, B has property X.

 4. COMPOSITION
Example:

Every course I took in college was well-

organized.
Therefore, my college education was well-
organized.

Even if the premise is true of each and every

component of my curriculum, the whole could
have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is
defective.
 4. COMPOSITION
Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of
converse accident, which improperly
generalizes from an unusual specific case (as
in "My philosophy course was well-organized;
therefore, college courses are well-
organized."). For the fallacy of composition,
the crucial fact is that even when something
can be truly said of each and every individual
part, it does not follow that the same can be
truly said of the whole class.
CASE
 5. DIVISION
Similarly, the fallacy of division involves an
inference from the attribution of some feature
to an entire class (or whole) to the possession
of the same feature by each of its individual
members (or parts).
A fallacy of division occur when one reason
logically that something true for the whole
must also be true of all or some of its parts.
A fallacy of division occur when argues from
the attribute of a collectionof element to the
attributes of element themselves.
The logical form of Fallacy of Division
is:
Premise 1: A is part of B

Premise 2: B has property X

Conclusion: Therefore, A has property X.

 5. DIVISION
Example:

Ocelots are now dying out.

Sparky is an ocelot.
Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

Although the premise is true of the species

as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not
reflect poorly upon the health of any of its
individual members.
 5. DIVISION
Again, be sure to distinguish this from the
fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a
general rule to an atypical specific case (as in
"Ocelots have many health problems, and
Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in
poor health"). The essential point in the fallacy
of division is that even when something can be
truly said of a whole class, it does not follow
that the same can be truly said of each of its
individual parts.
CASE