Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple senses within an argument. [ 1 ][ 2 ] It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. [ 1 ]
Apples and oranges are both similar-sized seeded fruits that grow on trees, but that does not make the two interchangeable. A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. [1]
The fallacy of four terms is a syllogistic fallacy. Types of syllogism to which it applies include statistical syllogism, hypothetical syllogism, and categorical syllogism, all of which must have exactly three terms. Because it applies to the argument's form, as opposed to the argument's content, it is classified as a formal fallacy.
Informal fallacies are a form of incorrect argument in natural language. [ 4 ] An argument is a series of propositions, called the premises, together with one more proposition, called the conclusion. [ 5 ][ 1 ] The premises in correct arguments offer either deductive or defeasible support for the conclusion.
A second example provides a first proposition that appears realistic and shows how an obviously flawed conclusion still arises under this fallacy. [3] To be on the cover of Vogue Magazine, one must be a celebrity or very beautiful. This month's cover was a celebrity. Therefore, this celebrity is not very beautiful.
One example of a global ambiguity is "The woman held the baby in the green blanket." In this example, the baby, incidentally wrapped in the green blanket, is being held by the woman, or the woman is using the green blanket as an instrument to hold the baby, or the woman is wrapped in the green blanket and holding the baby.
Not to be confused with Calling the question. In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which ...
Loaded question. A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). [ 1 ] Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. [ 2 ] The traditional example is the question "Have you ...