Fallacies Research Paper

Starting an argument with, challenging, or baiting the suspect. This statement would be considered involuntary because they communicated in a certain way that got the defendant to release a statement

After identifying the basic structure of a message, a critical thinker must ask, “What words or phrases are ambiguous?” (p. 40) An ambiguous word or phrase is one that has multiple possible meanings. Ambiguous words or phrases in an argument create the need for clarification of the meaning before a reader can fully evaluate the argument.

Generalizing from a sample size that is too small or biased, rather than looking at something more relevant with the situation.

This is another example of multiple meanings of words and phrases, leading to uncertainty regarding the transportation he used to arrive.

Fallacy is an argument that can be considered bad and may not make any logical sense. Often, arguments that are considered fallacies either don’t provide any evidence or the evidence is unrelated. People use fallacies often enough that they have been given specific names, so they can be easily referenced or identified.

Euphemism are types of words that make things sound better than they are. Dyseuphemism are types of words that make things sound worse than they are.

A fourth reason that the majority gave was that the defendant must understand that to invoke their Miranda rights, they must do in a way that does not give more than one interpretation. A defendant being quiet does not automatically mean that they are invoking their Miranda rights. They have to invoke their Miranda rights in a clear manner. Their statement is not allowed to have more than one meaning. If it does, then the statement is not “unambiguous”. If the statement of the defendant is ambiguous then they are not invoking their Miranda rights.

In the essay “Doubts About Doublespeak”(1993), William Lutz depicts how utilizing doublespeak can damage a society. Lutz begins with providing examples of doublespeak that range from silly to serious, showing how doublespeak can be harmless, but also disguise a truth with a manipulation of words. There are many different types of doublespeak, Lutz breaks it down into four different categories euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook and inflated language. By breaking them down, Lutz shows the audience that they share similarities in which they make something negative sound better than it is. There are more types of doublespeak that can be seen all around us, moreover, as more doublespeak is being created everyday and everywhere it becomes difficult

According to Browne and Stuart (2018), ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple possible meanings for a word or phrase. There are several ways a writer can do to decrease the likelihood that any ambiguous words or phrases are detracting from the communication. They are as follows: locate key terms or phrases in the issue and conclusion and define and or explain them; locate key terms or phrases in the reason and define and or explain them; and identify abstract words in the core argument. The more abstract the word, the more likely the author will need to clarify it (Browne & Stuart,

Criteria for relevance and ambiguity cannot be made formal because of the many ways in which an attempted inference may fall. When an attempted implication fails because the premises are irrelevant or ambiguous, we shall describe the argument containing inference as a fallacy. Web dictionary defines fallacy as a logic of any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. Fallacies in logic are incorrect forms of arguments. They may seem to be correct as a fallacy cannot inform us of the truth of its conclusion, yet can seem correct, its aim must be to cause us to accept or agree to its conclusion. We have seen that, while a literal use of words can inform us, the

An amphiboly is “a fallacy of syntactical ambiguity deliberately misusing implications” (Master List, p. 1).

Ambiguity can be defined as a word, phrase, or statement which contains more than one meaning. Ambiguity leads to vagueness and confusion which creates alternative reactions and understanding of the same work.

The dubious authority fallacy would be when someone uses a replacement opinion from someone who is not a subject matter expert. My wife and I both use Google to figure out everything, and I feel like that would be an example of this. Today our society is spoiled by technology, and it has its advantages, but also its disadvantages. I feel that one of the disadvantages is the amount information that is available and unreliable information. All that information is also an advantage, because we don’t need to visit library or any other reliable information is all at the click of a mouse. We have all the information generations before us would have never known. Many of us rely on Google for our everyday questions, and I guess with proper research

a category mistake, or a misuse of language. He even went so far as to

(1) “We cannot conceive or imagine an explanatory basis for the precise supervenience involving vague terms and concepts—that is, for facts of the form, such-and-such precise boundaries supervene on so-and-so overall pattern of usage.