The fallacy occurs when people use ambiguous language in an argument.
Let’s examine the following example:
What follows is a summary of the arguments in the video:
He must be the thief. I saw him with my security camera.
Let’s analyze the arguments. You have two attempts to complete each item.
* 1. What is the arguer’s claim? (Please select the best answer.)
A. He must be the thief.
B. I saw him with my security camera.
Well done. The first statement is the claim.
This is not the claim. It is the reason that supports the claim.
The statement in option A presents the arguer’s position/ claim.
* 2. What is the reason that the arguer uses to support the position? (Please select the best answer.)
A. He must be the thief.
B. I saw him with my security camera.
This is not the reason. This statement is the claim in the argument.
Good job! This is the reason that supports the claim.
The following statement is the reason that the arguer presents, though the statement is ambiguous: I saw him with my security camera.
Let’s review the argument and present it in standard format:
Premise/ reason: I saw him with my security camera.
Claim/ position: He must be the thief.
The arguer uses the phrase “with my security camera” in an ambiguous way and thus commits an “equivocation” fallacy. Did the arguer see with the security camera or did the “accused” thief take possession of the camera?