Question

• What is the difference between a fallacy of relevance, a fallacy of weak induction, and a fallacy of ambiguity?
• Provide at least one example of each, either something that you’ve heard or construct your own.

Answer 1

1) Fallacies of Relevance

Arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises.

Include: Appeal to Force, Appeal to Pity, Appeal to the People, Appeal to Fear, Bandwagon argument, Appeal to Vanity, Appeal to snobbery, Appeal to Tradition.

2)

Fallacies of weak induction

occur when the connection between premises and conclusion of an argument is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

Fallacies of weak induction may involve emotional grounds of believing the conclusion.

3) Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of ambiguity arise from the use of ambiguous language in the premises or conclusion, or both.
Equivocation; amphiboly.

Amphiboly - Fallacy of Ambiguity

Fallacy by which arguer misinterprets ambiguous statement, then draws conclusion based on faulty interpretation; arises from mistake in grammar or punctuation.

"John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage to admit his own mistakes." (Pronoun "he" has an ambiguous antecedent: John or Henry?)

Thanks