Equivocation

Part of our interpretation of longer arguments included the step of defining all unknown or questionable terms in an argument. This skill is helpful in finding out if the fallacy of Equivocation has been committed. In this fallacy, the meaning of a crucial term is changed in the course of the argument. In the case of Ambiguity, the term in question has only been used once, but can be interpreted in many different ways, only one of which will support the argument. Here is some examples of equivocation.

1)Hot dogs are better than nothing. There's nothing better than steak. So hot dogs are better than steak.

2)An aspirin will make noisy children go away because noisy children are a headache and aspirin makes headaches go away.

3)Everything that runs has feet. The river runs. Therefore the river has feet.

4)Some birds are domesticated. My parrot is domesticated. Therefore, my parrot is some bird!

5)The publication ban in the Paul Bernardo case ought to be lifted. After all, there is a great public interest in the case and the courts always ought to act in the public interest.

6)I ought to do what is right. And I have the right to publish my pacifist opinions concerning the American actions in Afghanistan. Hence, I ought to publish them.

7)We are told that discrimination is morally wrong. But how can that be the case? We praise people all the time for being discriminating -- in their taste for good wine, books and friends, for example. From now on, I'm not going to be inhibited against discriminating against women when they apply for jobs in my department.