People can change word emphasis, inflection, or context {accent, fallacy}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Two grammatical word or phrase forms can be in different word groups, link to different pronouns, or be different speech parts {amphiboly}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Extension to whole from part, or to class from individual, can have no logical basis {composition fallacy}|, an ambiguity fallacy.
Extension to part from whole can have no basis {decomposition}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Idea about class can apply to individual, or idea about whole can apply to part {division fallacy}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Assuming only mentioned alternatives, if other alternatives exist, is incompleteness {either-or fallacy}|, an ambiguity fallacy.
Words can have two meanings or have different contexts {equivocation}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Assuming only two conclusions or premises, if many exist, is incompleteness {false dichotomy}| {either/or fallacy}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Thingness can differentiate thing from other things {haec ergo quid fallacy}. However, two things can share more similarities than differences. Thing natures can be general categories.
Conditions have probabilities, such as 1% for diseases. Tests have reliability, such as 90%, and corresponding false-positive rates, such as 10%. If test is positive, most people think that chance of having condition is reliability, such as 90%, not probability divided by reliability, such as 0.9% {ignoring the base rate}.
Wholes can be only one aspect {misplaced concreteness fallacy}|, an ambiguity fallacy. Part relations can be more important than part types.
Words often have ambiguous scope or change scope after sentence rearranging or inference making {scope fallacy, logic}, an ambiguity fallacy. Statement, subject, or predicate negation changes scope. Reference change changes scope.
Arguments can use imprecise language {vagueness}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Outline of Knowledge Database Home Page
Description of Outline of Knowledge Database
Date Modified: 2022.0225