Consider the argument: 'The law states that anyone who causes a public disturbance is guilty; this comedian caused a public disturbance of laughter; therefore, the comedian is guilty.' What flaw is present?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. equivocation
- Step 1: The argument shifts between two completely different meanings of 'public disturbance': a legal public order offense versus an entertaining theatrical disruption. Using an ambiguous term in different senses within the same reasoning process is the fallacy of equivocation. Answer: equivocation. Why not the others: "post hoc causal misattribution" confuses chronological order of events with direct causal influence; "straw man distortion" misrepresents an opponent's perspective to make it easier to refute; "false dilemma argument" artificially restricts options to two opposing extreme alternatives.
Practise more Informal Fallacies and Reasoning Flaws.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed State Certificate of Language Proficiency (KPG) English mock tests.
More Informal Fallacies and Reasoning Flaws questions
- A spokesperson remarks: 'Our competitor claims their electric vehicle is safer, but their CEO was once investigated for insider trading.' Wh…
- An editorial asserts: 'If we lower the legal voting age to sixteen, next children will be allowed to drive trucks, and soon toddlers will ru…
- A politician asserts: 'Either you support our emergency national surveillance bill or you are siding with violent criminals.' What fallacy i…
- A doctor notes: 'The patient drank herbal tea every morning and recovered from pneumonia; therefore, the herbal tea cured the pneumonia.' Wh…
- A critic argues: 'Those who favor public transit subsidies want to completely ban private automobiles and confiscate all personal cars.' Wha…
- A philosopher argues: 'Capital punishment is completely justified because the state has the moral authority to execute murderers.' What fall…