Scribd
Upload
56 views2 pages

Sample Answer Equivocation Fallacy

(1) This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation by using the term "laws" in two different senses - first referring to societal laws created by lawmakers, then referring to natural scientific laws. (2) It violates the acceptability condition for a good argument by using a premise that is unclear due to this shifting definition of "laws". (3) Specifically, it abandons the original argument about societal laws to make an entirely new argument about natural laws, committing errors of both definition and clarity.

Uploaded by

pratimaghevariya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views2 pages

Sample Answer Equivocation Fallacy

(1) This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation by using the term "laws" in two different senses - first referring to societal laws created by lawmakers, then referring to natural scientific laws. (2) It violates the acceptability condition for a good argument by using a premise that is unclear due to this shifting definition of "laws". (3) Specifically, it abandons the original argument about societal laws to make an entirely new argument about natural laws, committing errors of both definition and clarity.

Uploaded by

pratimaghevariya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MODR1730 & 1760 Lesson 11 Part 3 Equivocation sample answer

FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION
5-STEP PROCESS FOR NEUTRALIZING FALLACIES
SAMPLE QUESTION AND ANSWER

Question:

The laws imply lawgivers. There are laws in nature. Therefore, there must be a cosmic
lawgiver.

Step 1:

Yellow highlighting = Conclusion signal word

[1 The laws <societal laws; collective minimum moral standards that we hold people to
in a democratic society; involves, lawyers, judges, paralegals> imply lawgivers <lawyers,
judges, or paralegals>.] [2 There are laws in nature <natural laws; for example, gravity,
inertia, and so on] [3 Therefore, there must be a cosmic lawgiver <God principle; God;
creator>.]

P1: The laws imply lawgivers.


P2: There are laws in nature.
C: Therefore, there must be a cosmic lawgiver.

Step 2:

Fallacy of Equivocation 
Fallacy of Equivocation 
Equivocation Fallacy 

Step 3:

 Occurs when a word or phrase is used two different ways in the same argument.
 The fallacy that is caused by a shift between legitimate meanings of a term.

Step 4:

 The key terms that shifts between legitimate meanings is “laws” or “lawgivers.”
 The first meaning of “laws”, found in the claim “laws imply lawgivers,” refers to
laws of the legal system in a democratic society, involving courts, fines and
prison time.

1|Page
MODR1730 & 1760 Lesson 11 Part 3 Equivocation sample answer

 The second meaning of “laws,” found in the claim “there are laws in nature,”
refers to natural, scientific laws; for example, gravity.
 The first meaning of “lawgivers” refers to the societal legal system in which the
lawgivers are lawyers, judges, paralegals, and so on.
 The second meaning of “laws” refers to natural laws, such as, gravity or inertia.

Step 5:
 Format for an A+ answer = numbered points, (1), (2), and so on.
 Follow the model taught in class.

 Violates the (1 = state one condition for a good argument that is violated)
acceptability condition for a good argument (also violates relevancy).
 (2 = define the condition) Acceptability condition is violated when a problematic
premise is given that is outright false, open to doubt, or unclear.
 (3 = if the condition has several aspects to it, then state which aspects of that
condition are violated) This argument violates both the “doubtful” and “unclear”
aspects of the acceptability condition for a good argument.
 (4 = explain in detail how/why this condition is violated; with reference to: (a)
the argument itself and (b) with reference to what it means to violate that
condition for a good argument, and (c) with reference to course material from
the slides) Once the arguer has defined the key term, “laws” explicitly as
implying “lawgivers”, the arguer cannot then use a different meaning for “laws”
referring to “laws in nature”.
 This argument commits an error of DEFINITION:
 Since “natural laws” are completely different from “societal laws”, AND natural
lawgivers are completely different from societal lawgivers, this argument makes
a mistake in reasoning by changing the definition of “laws” and “lawgivers” right
in the middle of the argument. This is an error because the arguer is abandoning
the original argument in P1 about “societal laws” for an entirely new argument in
P2 about “natural laws”.
 This argument also commits an error of CLARITY:
 If the arguer were precise and careful about the key terms, the error would not
occur. The arguer should have chosen one word for X “laws of nature” and then
a different word for “God”.
 Moreover, the problem of clarity also misleads and confuses the reader or
argument partner by attempting to fool them into believing that there must be a
cosmic lawgiver, that God must exist, due to the inherent ambiguity of the word
“laws.”

2|Page

You might also like