Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Equivocation (or the magician's choice) is a verbal technique by which a magician gives an audience member an apparently free choice but frames the next stage of the trick in such a way that each choice has the same end result. [2] An example of equivocation can be as follows: A performer deals two cards on a table and asks a spectator to ...
For example, the statement "Green is the best color because it is the greenest of all colors", offers no independent reason besides the initial assumption for its conclusion. Detecting this fallacy can be difficult when a complex argument with many sub-arguments is involved, resulting in a large circle.
Example 1. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: If someone lives in San Diego, then they live in California. Joe lives in California. Therefore, Joe lives in San Diego. There are many places to live in California other than San Diego.
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, [1] [14] specifically a fallacy of relevance, [15] [16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).
An appeal to nature is a rhetorical technique for presenting and proposing the argument that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'." [1] In debate and discussion, an appeal-to-nature argument can be considered to be a bad argument, because the implicit primary premise "What is natural is good" has no factual meaning beyond rhetoric in some or most contexts.
Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum). Below is an example: Since only man [human] is rational. And no woman is a man [male]. Therefore, no woman is rational. [1] The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male.
Hints and the solution for today's Wordle on Thursday, December 12.
Tu quoque (/ tj uː ˈ k w oʊ k w iː /; [1] Latin for 'you also') is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical.