Looking for answers? Westonci.ca is your go-to Q&A platform, offering quick, trustworthy responses from a community of experts. Connect with professionals on our platform to receive accurate answers to your questions quickly and efficiently. Our platform provides a seamless experience for finding reliable answers from a network of experienced professionals.
Sagot :
Answer:
Above passage DOES. commit a fallacy. Specifically, it DOES NOT commit the fallacy of equivocation, and it DOES commit the fallacy of amphiboly.
Explanation:
Both fallacies are related to ambiguity, but there is an important difference between them. Equivocation usually focuses on two possible meanings of the same word. Those two meanings are used in different parts of the argument, which invalidates it. Imagine, for instance, an argument that uses the word "right" meaning both "legal entitlement" and "correct". That would be an equivocation.
Amphiboly usually focuses on the wrong interpretation given to a phrase or expression inside a sentence. Therefore, it is the context that allows for different interpretations to occur, even if the author's intention was not ambiguous. That is what we have in the passage we are analyzing here. "No shoes are better than Nikverse brand shoes" means that Nikverse are the best shoes. However, the context allowed for a different and erroneous interpretation. The person thought that "no shoes" referred to being barefoot. That is why he argues that "no shoes" being better is ridiculous. He thinks that wearing shoes is better than not wearing shoes, which was never the point the original author, Amber, meant.
Thanks for stopping by. We are committed to providing the best answers for all your questions. See you again soon. Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. Keep exploring Westonci.ca for more insightful answers to your questions. We're here to help.