Although I have a degree in math, I’ve been told that “logic” and math are different. Logic, it seems, is more often claimed by English and philosophy students. \u00a0So be it.<\/p>\n
Today I pulled my Harbrace Handbook for Canadians<\/span> off the shelf, simply because I haven’t looked in it for a while. \u00a0I opened it to a random page and got schooled on a new concept: equivocation.<\/strong><\/p>\n While equivocation has other meanings, the topic I landed at was logical fallacies. In that context, equivocation<\/strong> is the assumption that when one meaning of a word applies, its other meaning does as well. Here’s an equivocation:<\/p>\n All you’ll find in the trash is trash<\/em>.<\/p>\n Given society’s fascination with abandoned articles and what treasures might be found among them, we can probably agree that\u00a0All you’ll find in the trash is trash<\/em> is not necessarily true.<\/p>\n What makes All you’ll find in the trash is trash<\/em> an equivocation is that trash has two meanings:<\/p>\n 1) \u00a0Trash comprises articles that people throw away.<\/p>\n 2) \u00a0Trash comprises articles that have no value.<\/p>\n Both meanings don’t have to apply simultaneously; we’ve all heard of valuable items being found amongst trash. \u00a0Furthermore, what seems valueless to one person might be prized by someone else.<\/p>\n The point Harbrace<\/span> makes: \u00a0A student should take care not to use such an argument in an essay; the reward will likely be red ink.<\/p>\n HTH:)<\/p>\n Source:<\/p>\n Hodges, Horner, et al. \u00a0Harbrace Handbook for Canadians<\/span>. \u00a0Scarborough: \u00a0Nelson \u00a0 \u00a0 Education Ltd., 2003.<\/p>\n