INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY: LOGIC

Lecture Notes(Continuation))

LECTURER: Mwange Ifedha

BASIC CONCEPTS IN LOGIC

Introduction
As we adequately noted in our previous lecture, Logic is a branch of Philosophy that deals with
reasoning.
Logic can be defined as the study of the principles of reasoning.
Reasoning in this case is the process by which inference is made from other propositions i.e., a
process of drawing a conclusion from other propositions which are premises. Reasoning is also
referred to as argumentation.
Thus Logic is the study of reasoning and the principles of good reasoning. In other words, Logic
is the study of argumentation.
1. Argument
 An argument is a set of propositions in which the truth/meaning of one of the propositions
is claimed to be established from the truth/meaning of other proposition(s) either
necessarily or by some probability.

 The proposition whose truth/meaning is derived or asserted from the truth/meaning of the
other propositions is referred to as the conclusion while the other proposition(s) whose
truth/meaning provides the evidence for asserting/establishing the conclusion is/ are
referred to as premise(s)

 An argument therefore can also be defined as a set of premise(s) and a conclusion

 Any given argument must, as a matter of fact, have at least two propositions, i.e., a premise;
which provides the evidence/truth/meaning from which a conclusion is stated, and a
conclusion which is derived/stated on the basis of the truth/meaning of the premise.

 But at most, an argument can have an infinite number of premises and a conclusion
  In any given argument, the conclusion need not be stated last; it can be stated first or within
premises. For example, read newspapers editorials

2. Proposition
A proposition is a sentence that has a truth value, that is, a sentence that is either true or false
The condition of a sentence to be either true or false is referred to as truth value. In other words,
the truth value of a sentence is its truth or falsity.
For example:
1. Chuka University is in Tharaka Nithi County (TRUE)
2. Some cows are monkeys (FALSE)
3. All Kenyan politicians are corrupt (FALSE)
4. Uhuru Kenyatta is the fourth president of the Republic of Kenya (TRUE)
It is important to note that not all sentences qualify to be propositions so as to be used in the
construction of arguments because not all sentences have a truth value. Examples of sentences that
lack a truth value thus do not qualify as propositions include the following:
1. Interrogative sentences (Questions) e.g. How old are you?
2. Exclamations e.g. Oh my God!
3. Imperative sentences (Commands) e.g. Get out of my office!
4. Suggestions e.g. We can have coffee after this lecture.
5. Performative sentences e.g. With this water I baptize thee
As noted above, an argument is composed of propositions. A proposition in an argument may
either be a premise or a conclusion depending on the role it performs in an argument. If a
proposition provides evidence for asserting the conclusion, then it is a premise and if its
asserted on the basis of the truth of the premise(s) then it is a conclusion.
Type of Propositions
We have two general types of propositions namely:
 Simple Propositions (normally referred to as standard categorical proposition)
 Compound Propositions
3. Compound propositions
Compound propositions include:
1. Hypothetical Proposition which takes the form If p then q
e.g. If he ran the marathon in 1hourand 59 minutes, then he is fast

2. Disjunctive proposition which takes the form: Either p or q

e.g. You can either have a sausage or bacon

3. Conjunctive proposition which takes the form: Both p and q

e.g. Both apples and oranges are nutritious

4. Biconditional proposition which takes the form: P if and only if q

e.g. One will qualifies to study the university for a degree course if and
only if one scores a minimum of grade C+

4. Standard Categorical Propositions

 It is important we understand the concept categorical proposition since it forms the basis of the
study of Logic

 A categorical proposition can be defined as one that asserts that the subject class is either
wholly or partially included or excluded from the predicate class.

 A standard categorical proposition has four components namely:

 Quantifier
This is a term that specify how much of the subject class is included in or
excluded from the predicate class. Terms such as All, Some, No etc. are used
as quantifiers.

i. Subject Term
This is the term which represents the subject class

ii. Copula
This is a form of the verb ‘to be’ e.g. is or are

iii. Predicate Term

This is a term that represents the predicate class
We have four standard categorical propositions namely the A, E, I and O which take the following
forms:
A: All S are P, e.g. All human beings are rational
E: No S are P, e.g. No human beings are rational
I: Some S are P, e.g. Some human beings are rational
O: Some S are not P, e.g. Some human beings are not rational

A standard categorical proposition that makes reference to all members of its subject class is said
to be universal e.g. A and E, whereas a proposition that makes reference to only some members
of its subject class is referred to as particular e.g. I and O
When a proposition affirms the inclusion of its subject class either wholly or partially into its
predicate class then, it is said to be affirmative e.g. A and I and when a proposition asserts the
exclusion of its subject class wholly or partially from the predicate class, then it is said to be
negative e.g. E and O .
A: All S are P is universal affirmative
E: No S are P is universal negative
I: Some S are P is particular affirmative
O: Some S are P is particular negative
 The four letters A, E, O and I that are used to refer to the standard categorical propositions are
derived from the two Latin words Affirmo (which means, I affirm) and Nego (which means, I
deny). The first two vowels A and I from the word AffIrmo represents the two affirmative
forms of the categorical propositions i.e., the UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE and the
PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE propositions. Whereas the two vowels E and O from the word
nEgO represent the two negative forms of the standard categorical proposition.

 A standard categorical proposition is described in terms of quantity and quality. Quantity is

the property of being either universal or particular whereas quality is the property of being
affirmative or negative. Thus A is universal affirmative, E is universal negative, I is particular
affirmative and O is particular negative.

Kinds of Arguments
From our previous definition of the concept argument, we can deduce that there are two kinds of
arguments; deductive and inductive
5. Deductive Argument
 This is the kind of argument in which there is a claim that if the truth of the premise(s) is
granted then it implies the truth of the conclusion.

 In other words, it is an argument in which if the truth of the premise(s) is accepted then the
conclusion is also true as a matter of logical necessity.

 An inductive argument is one in which the premise(s) is/are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that it is impossible for the premise(s) to be true and at same time the conclusion
false; the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises.

 In a good deductive argument, if the truth of the premises is granted, one has no doubt but to
accept the truth of the conclusion. In such a case, any attempt to accept the truth of the premises
and at the same time doubt the truth of the conclusion will lead to a contradiction.
 In a good deductive argument, the meaning of the premises taken together implies nothing else
but the meaning of the conclusion.

Example 1:
All human beings are mortal
Nyasani is a human being
Therefore, Nyasani is mortal

 From the above argument if it is the case that ‘all human beings are mortal’ is true (yes it is
true as a matter of fact) and that ‘Nyasani is a human being’ is equally true (and in deed he is.
He actually taught me Metaphysics), then one has no doubt but to accept the truth of the
conclusion that ‘Therefore, Nyasani is mortal’. In this case there is a clear relationship between
the premises and the conclusion.

 The relationship is such that the meaning of the premises implies the meaning of the
conclusion. Or if you so wish the truth of the premises causes the truth of the conclusion
necessarily.

 In a bad deductive argument, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the truth of its
premises; the argument is such that even if the truth of its premises is granted, the truth of its
conclusion must not be inferred necessarily. That is, the meaning of its premises taken together
does not imply the meaning of the conclusion.
 In a bad deductive argument there is no relationship that exist between the premises and the
conclusion. In fact, there is a disconnect between the truth of the premises and the truth of the
conclusion such that the meaning of the premises does not imply the meaning of the conclusion.
In such a case one can accept the truth of the premises and deny the truth of the conclusion
without a contradiction.
Example 2:
All animals breathe
All human beings breathe
Therefore, all human being are animals
 The above example is of a bad deductive argument; it is evident that, it does not follow that
‘If all animals breathe, and “All human beings breathe’ then, ‘all human beings are animals’.
The truth of the premises taken together does not imply the truth of the conclusion. In this
argument its evident that there is no relationship between the truth/meaning of the premises
and the truth/meaning of the conclusion.

 In the above argument, as much as the conclusion is true (All human beings are animals), it is
true not because of the truth of the premises. It is true independently yet in a good deductive
argument the conclusion must necessarily derive its truth from the premises.

Example 3:
All animals are two-legged creatures
All dogs are two-legged creatures
Therefore, all dogs are animals
If we take the above argument as correct and accept the truth of the conclusion as based on the
truth of the premises, then one would be forced to accept the following arguments as equally
correct.
Example 4:
All animals breathe
All plants breathe
Therefore, all plants are animals
 Example 5:
All human beings breathe
All dogs breathe
Therefore, all dogs are human beings
 The above arguments are bad deductive arguments because their premises taken together do
not mean the same thing as their conclusions. Even if their premises were true (as it is in the
case of Example 4 and 5), their respective conclusions are not true and therefore cannot be
claimed to be true. In both cases, the premises are not related to the conclusions.

 There is lack of a necessary relationship between the premises and the conclusion. We
therefore can accept the truth of the premises but at the same time deny the truth of the
conclusion.

 In a good deductive argument, it is impossible for one to accept the truth of it premises and at
the same time, deny the truth of its conclusion without a contradiction.

 Therefore, in a good deductive argument, the truth of the conclusion must always follow
necessarily or with mathematical certainty from the truth of the premises.

6. Inductive Argument
 This an argument in which there is a claim that the truth of its premise(s), if granted, offers
only probable support to the truth of the conclusion i.e., if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is probably true.

 In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises only offers partial or probable support to
the truth of the conclusion.

 An inductive argument is one in which if the truth of the premises is granted then the truth of
the conclusion follows as a matter of probability.

Example 1:
Most Africans like dancing
Nyasani likes dancing
Therefore, probably Nyasani is an African
Example 2:
There are 120 students in the Logic class
80 of the students randomly assessed are found to be good in Logic
Therefore, probably all the 120 students in the Logic class are good in Logic
In an inductive argument, the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises only
with some degree of probability. If it is true that ‘Most Africans like dancing’ and ‘Nyasani likes
dancing’, then it is only probable, not necessary, that ‘Nyasani is an African’

7. Validity
 Validity is strictly an attribute of deductive arguments and not inductive arguments. It refers
to a particular structure/form of a deductive argument.

 The form/ structure is constituted by the relationship between the propositions of argument,
i.e., the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of a deductive argument.

 A valid argument is one in which the propositions are ordered/arranged in such a manner that
if the truth of the premises is given, then the truth of the conclusion follows without doubt.

 Validity therefore is a relational condition between the propositions of a deductive argument

such that if the truth of the premises is granted, then the truth of its conclusion is also
established necessarily.

 Validity has to do with how the propositions in a deductive argument are arranged/ordered
such that the meaning of the premises implies the meaning of the conclusion. The arrangement
of propositions in a good deductive argument must be such that there is a relationship between
the premises and the conclusion i.e., the premises imply the conclusion

 In a valid deductive argument, the truth of the premises necessarily guarantees the truth of its
conclusion; it is therefore impossible for one to accept the truth of the premises of the argument
but deny at the same time the truth of its conclusion.

 This is because in a valid deductive argument, the meaning of the conclusion is already
contained in the meaning of the premises taken together; by accepting the truth of the premises
of a valid argument, one implicitly accepts the truth of its conclusion.
 A good deductive argument must be first and foremost be valid i.e., it must have a good
structure where the propositions are arranged in an order where the premises mean the
conclusion necessarily

Example I:
All human beings are rational beings
All Africans are human beings
Therefore, all Africans are rational beings
 If one accepts that all human beings are rational beings, and that all Africans are human beings,
then one must just conclude necessarily that ‘All Africans are rational beings’; anything else
would be a contradiction.

 A valid argument therefore has a good/correct relationship between its premises and
conclusion, hence a good structure/ form; if the premises were true in such a structure they
would justify the conclusion; a good deductive argument must therefore be valid.

8. Invalidity

 This is strictly an attribute of a deductive argument, and not of an inductive argument. It is a

relational condition between the propositions of a deductive argument, but such that the truth
of its premises, if granted, does not guarantee or imply the truth of its conclusion.

 The given conclusion, then, does not follow necessarily from the given premises; the meaning
of the premises taken together does not entail the meaning expressed in the conclusion.

 In such a condition, one can then accept the truth of the premises and still deny the truth of the
conclusion at the same time without any contradiction.

 Actually, invalidity occurs in a bad deductive argument where the order or arrangement of the
premises is such that the truth of the premises does not imply the truth of the conclusion. In
this case the way the premises and the conclusion are arranged is in such a manner that it does
not create a relationship between them.
 An invalid argument has a disconnect between its premises and conclusion such that the
meaning of the premises does not imply the meaning of the conclusion
Example 1:
All Africans are black
All Kenyans are black
Therefore, all Kenyans are Africans.
 This argument is invalid, therefore a bad deductive argument; given that ‘All Africans are
black’ and ‘All Kenyans are black’, we need not conclude necessarily that ‘All Kenyans are
Africans’; the fact that ‘All Africans are black’ doesn’t mean that ‘All black people are
Africans’.

 If Kenyans happened to be black, that doesn’t necessarily make them Africans; the truth of the
above conclusion is not inferred in the truth of the premises; therefore, the truth of the
conclusion is independent of the premises; let us explain this point with another example:

Example 2:
All Kenyan are Africans
All Nigerians are Africans
Therefore, all Nigerians are Kenyans

 Now, we get the point; the premises are actually true but the conclusion is actually false; this
means that the truth of the conclusion does not necessarily follow from that of the premises;
the truth of the premises fails to justify the conclusion.

 NOTE: Validity or invalidity can therefore be seen as a structure of, or arrangement of

propositions in a deductive argument; this is what is meant by being a relational condition; it
is how the propositions of a deductive argument are related in terms of truth or meaning.

9. Strength:
Strength is used in reference to inductive arguments and not deductive arguments. It is strictly an
attribute of inductive arguments. Like validity and invalidity, strength is also a relational condition
that holds between the propositions (premises and conclusion) of an inductive argument; it refers
to a kind of structure of an inductive argument.
An inductive argument is said to be strong when it is such that if its premises are assumed to be
true, then its conclusion has a higher probability of being true, i.e., its conclusion is most likely to
be true.
Example I: Strong inductive argument
There are 120 students in the Logic class
100 of them picked at random are found to be poor in Logic
Therefore, probably all the 120 students in the class are poor in Logic
In this example, there is a higher chance that the remaining 20 students are equally poor in Logic.
It is also probable that the 20 are not poor in Logic, but the probability that they are poor in Logic
is higher.
A weak inductive argument is such that if its premises are assumed true, then its conclusion has
little or no probability of being true; let’s take an example of a weak inductive argument:

Example I: Weak inductive

There are 120 students in the Logic class
20 of them picked at random are found to be poor in Logic
Therefore, probably all the 120 students are poor in Logic

From the fact that 20 of the students picked at random are found to be poor in Logic, it is least
likely that all the remaining 100 students are also poor in Logic.
The strong inductive argument has the truth of the premises offering a greater probability of
establishing the truth of its conclusion. While the weak inductive argument has the truth of the
premises offering the least probability of establishing the truth of its conclusion
The conclusion is more likely to be true in a strong inductive argument and least likely to be
true in a weak inductive argument.
A good inductive argument is a strong one while a bad one is a weak one
An inductive argument is not only judged but can be judged as very strong, strong, weak, very
weak, better or worse; it is a matter of degree. There are bad inductive arguments usually
based on stereotype attitudes (see below):

Example I:
 Kikuyus are the ones who carry out violent robberies in Nairobi. If you doubt that, let me prove
it to you. Last year alone, all the people who were arrested in connection with 10 violent robbery
cases were Kikuyus.

All cases of bad arguments whether they are invalid or weak corresponding to deductive and
inductive arguments respectively, are cases of poor reasoning in which the truth of the conclusions
are not established or least established on the basis of the truth of their premises.

Truth:
 Logic is not only limited to validity or invalidity of arguments; it is also concerned with the
truth or falsity (truth-value) of propositions in the arguments; it is concerned with the
implications of given propositions.

 The main aim of reasoning is to establish the truth of the assertions made (given conclusions)
on the basis of the truth of the premises (evidence); for instance:

Example 1:

All human beings have three legs

Brian is a human being
Therefore, Brian has three legs

Example 2

Living things breathe

Stars are living things
Therefore, stars breathe

 These examples are valid arguments, but they are defective because they have ignored the truth
of the individual propositions that constitute them; reasoning in total disregard of the truth
would be of no use at all.

 If any reasoning, there is a failure to establish either necessarily or with some degree of
probability, the truth of the assertions made, then the reasoning is said to be defective; this is
due to either the arguments being either invalid or weak, or some of the premises being false,
i.e., ignoring the truth of the propositions used.
 Any good argument must consider both structure (validity for deductive arguments and
strength for inductive arguments) and the truth (soundness for deductive arguments and
cogency for inductive arguments) of the propositions (premises) For instance:

Cows have teeth and

Nyasani has teeth;
Therefore, Nyasani is a cow

The premises are actually true but the conclusion is false.

Hypothetical and Actual Truth:

 There are two kinds of truth; hypothetical and actual truth; we ca assume that certain
propositions are true for the sake of illustration in order to see what would be the implications
were the propositions actual true; for such a reason, a proposition need not be true in reality;
this is known as the hypothetical truth.

 Hypothetical truth is used only to establish validity or strength; if we assume that it is true that
all human beings have three legs, and that it is also true that Brian is a human being, then we
must accept it to be the case that Brian has three legs; the conclusion follows only from the
assumption that the premises are true; hypothetical truth helps in illustrating and
understanding forms or structures of arguments.

 Hypothetical truth is solely for illustrating the nature of the relationship that exists between the
propositions of an argument, i.e., between premises and conclusion of a given argument.

Sound and Unsound Arguments

Soundness or unsoundness applies only to deductive arguments, and not to inductive arguments.
A sound argument is a deductive argument that is both valid and has actually true premises; in
such a case, the argument establishes the truth of its conclusion.

Example:
All human beings breathe, Oriare is a human being
Therefore, Oriare breaths.
The premises are actually true, and the argument are also valid since it is structured in such a way
that it is impossible for one to accept the truth of its premises but deny the truth of its conclusion.

NOTE: A sound argument is actually a good deductive argument since:

1. It has a good structure i.e. it is valid
2. It has actually true premises
An unsound argument is a deductive argument that is either invalid (that it has a bad structure
such that the meaning of the premises do not imply the meaning of the conclusion) or it has at least
one of it premises as false or it is both invalid and has at least a false premise.
Example 1:
All human beings have three legs
Oriare is a human being
Therefore, Oriare has three legs

This deductive argument is unsound. Though it is valid, one of its premises is false.
Example 2:
All professors are published scholar
Nyasani is a published scholar
Therefore, Nyasani is a professor

This argument is unsound because despite having all its premises as true, it is invalid. It is invalid
since the way the premises are arranged, their truth doesnot imply the truth of the conclusion. In
other words, the argument is unsound since its invalid; it has a bad structure
Example 3:
All human beings are cows
Cows are monkeys
Therefore, cows are human beings

This argument is invalid for two reasons:

1. It has false premises
2. It is invalid in the sense that the arrangement of the premises doesn’t provide an
opportunity where the meaning of the premises imply the meaning of the conclusion

NOTE: An unsound argument is a bad deductive argument since it either invalid or at least one of
its proposition is false.
Cogency and Uncogency
Cogency and uncogency are strictly attributes of inductive arguments.
A cogent argument is a deductive argument that is both strong and has all its premises as actually
true. It is strong since its probability or chances of the conclusion being true from the truth of the
premises is high.

Example 1:
There are 120 students in the Logic class
100 of the students randomly picked are found to be good in Logic
Therefore, probably all the 120 students in the Logic class are good in Logic

The above is an example of a cogent argument. It is cogent because it is strong and all its premises
are actually true
An uncogent argument is a deductive argument that is either weak i.e, the chances of the conclusion
being true following from the truth of the premises are very minimal or none at all, or it has at least
one of its premises as false or its both weak and has at least a false premise.
Example:
There are 120 students in the Logic class
20 of the students randomly picked are found to be good in Logic
Therefore, probably all the 120 students in the Logic class are good in Logic

The above argument is uncogent. Despite having all its premises as actually true, it is weak because
the chances of the conclusion being true from the truth of the premises are very minimal.

FALLACIES
 Fallacies are errors or mistakes in reasoning/argumentation.

 A fallacious argument may look accurate or good and very convincing at the surface level but
upon being subjected to rigorous thinking the mistake/error is exposed.

 Fallacies are generally divided into two broad categories: Formal and Informal Fallacies
 Formal fallacies are those that result from an argument having a bad structure or form. In such
cases the way the propositions in an argument are arranged or ordered does not allow the truth
of the premises if granted to imply the truth of the conclusion either necessarily (for deductive
arguments) or probably (for inductive arguments).

 Informal fallacies on the other hands result from the subject matter of propositions used in an
argument; that is, they result from the choice of words/concepts that make up a proposition
thus determining its truth value and interpretation of the meaning entailed in the propositions;
a good argument must among others conditions have actually true propositions and the
propositions must have words whose meaning is very precise.
 At the introductory level of studying Logic, we will mainly focus on informal fallacies.

Informal Fallacies:
Informal fallacies are divided in two categories:
1. Fallacies of Relevance
2. Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Relevance
The fallacies of relevance occur in arguments whose premises are logically irrelevant and therefore
incapable of establishing the truth of their conclusions.
We have various type of fallacies of relevance which include the following:
1. Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
This is fallacy committed when one argues that something is true because no one has ever
proven it false. Or when one argues that a particular case/position is true due to the fact that
the contrary has not been proven.
It is a fallacy that is committed whenever one argues that a particular proposition is true on the
basis that it has not or has never been proven false. Or that a particular proposition is false
because it has not or has never been proven true.
Example:
Since time immemorial theologians have been trying to logically and sufficiently prove the
existence of God without success. Therefore, is obvious that God does not exist.
This argument is fallacious. It commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. The fact that
theologian have not succeeded in logically and sufficiently proving the existence of God does
not justify the conclusion that God does not exist.

2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam)

This is an appeal to emotions argument that is committed when one argues in a way that
elicits/generates feelings of pity to an individual or particular case or scenario thus
prompting one’s target audience to arrive at a conclusion out of feelings of pity or mercy
rather than reason.
For example, a student may argue “Please professor the exam was hard and I am sure I
have not performed well. I am pleading with you not to fail me since I am an orphan
who depends on scholarship and If I fail I am likely to lose the scholarship and
accommodation at the orphanage. Please let me not fail’

3. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

It is an appeal to emotions argument committed when one appeals to force or threats to

compel one’s target audience to accept a particular conclusion on the basis of fear rather
than reason.
This fallacy occurs when one invokes threats to compel one’s target to do that which the
target would not have rationally done. This fallacy is epitomized in the saying that ‘might
is right’ or the dictum ‘master morality, slave morality’
This fallacy is mostly committed by those who are in power or have an advantage or edge
over others. For instance, in politics, at work place among others.

Example:
For instance, the Secretary to the Cabinet in his address to other Cabinet Secretary may
argue:
‘The President has made it clear that he would like to have a referendum to change the
constitution to allow him run for a third term. We as key member of his administration
have no otherwise but to support the president. We must be therefore at the fore front in
advocating for the referendum in all our public engagements. If there is any cabinet
secretary who is of a different opinion, then I would wish that cabinet secretary to state
it here now so that the President and I can discuss his/her fate.’

From the argument above it clear that whoever would want to oppose the President’s idea
of the referendum would lose his job. Therefore, most of the cabinet secretaries would
 support the President not on the basis of rational conviction but rather the fear of being
sacked from the cabinet.

4. Appeal to People/Masses (Argumentum ad Populum)

This fallacy is committed when one directs an emotional appeal to the people or the masses
with a view of coercing them to accept a particular conclusion or opinion which is
unsupported by good evidence.
It is an attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing feelings and enthusiasm
of a people,
This fallacy is a favourite tool for propagandists, politicians, street preachers, demagogues
and advertisers among others.
To mobilize public support for or against a particular measure or position, the politician or
propagandist avoid the task of collecting and presenting evidence through rationally
constructed arguments and resort to use short-cut methods of argumentum ad populum.
For example, where the proposal is for change and a politician or propagandist is against
it, he/she will express suspicion of ‘viability or admissibility of the program’ and praise
the wisdom of the ‘existing order’. If he/she is for it, he will be for ‘progress’ and opposed
to ‘antiquated prejudice’

Fallacies of Ambiguity
These are fallacies that occur when an arguer uses ambiguous words/concepts/phrases
whose meaning is subject to diverse interpretations or whose meaning shifts depending
upon what part may be emphasized or accented. Examples of fallacies of ambiguity include
the following:

1. Fallacy of Accent
This fallacy is committed in an argument whose deceptive but invalid nature depends upon
a change or a shift in meaning. The way in which meaning shifts depends upon what part
of it may be emphasized or accented. Some statements have quite different meanings when
different words are stressed.

2. Fallacy of Amphiboly
This fallacy occurs in arguing from premises whose formulations are ambiguous because
of their grammatical construction. An amphibolous statement is one whose meaning is
indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way in which its words are combined. Such
an amphibolous statement may be true on one interpretation and false on another. When it
is stated as the premises with the interpretation which makes it true, and a conclusion is
drawn from it on the interpretation which makes it false, then the fallacy of amphiboly has
been committed.
Example of amphibolous statements are wartime posters urging us to ‘save food and waste
paper’ or the definition of Anthropology as ‘the science of man embracing woman’
Amphiboly is often exhibited by newspaper headings and brief items, as in ‘The man blew
his head off on discovery of his wife’s disloyalty’

3. Fallacy of Equivocation
This fallacy occurs when words that have more than one literal meaning are used in the
premises that make up an argument. This causes problems in interpretation since the
intended meaning might be lost
This fallacy occurs actually when the two meanings in a particular word or phrase used in
the argument are obtained through interpretation. When these two meanings are used in at
the same time in the same context then we say the argument has committed the fallacy of
equivocation since the offending word/phrases has been used equivocally.