1. Are the following claims vague or ambiguous or both? If vague, explain why. If
ambiguous, state whether it is a case of amphibole (syntactic ambiguity) or semantic
ambiguity, and provide at least two alternative interpretations.
a. Jennifer is a wealthy woman.
This claim is vague in my opinion. This is because the term wealthy can be open to different
interpretations. It can also be a subjective term in some scenarios given wealth can mean
different things to different people.
b. Vitamin E is good for aging people.
This is vague in my opinion. This is because their is no context or reasoning behind the
statement. Nothing is said about why vitamin E is good for aging people.
c. [from Shakespeare's Henry VI] The duke yet lives that Henry shall depose.
This statement is ambiguous. This would be considered syntactic ambiguity because the
situation can be interpreted in more than one way. The first interpretation could be that the duke
is the one who will depose Henry. The other interpretation is that the duke is the one who Henry
will depose.
2. The following are 'medical bloopers' that were circulated on a list that claimed that 'this
varicose vein of anguished English has in no way been doctored.' In each case, diagnose
the problem (vagueness, ambiguity, or something else) and, if possible, rewrite the
medical comment to make it clear and precise.
a. The patient has been depressed ever since she began seeing me in 1983.
The problem is that it is ambiguous. This is because there are two interpretations. One is that
the patient has been depressed since the year 1983 that happens to be when they started
visiting the doctor. The second is that the patient has been depressed since 1983 because they
started seeing that doctor. If it were to be rewritten I would say, “The patient began seeing me in
1983 because of her depression”
b. The patient refused an autopsy.
The problem is that it is vague and lacks clarity. There is nothing stating why tha autopsy was
refused or anything other information regarding it. The patient could’ve refused teh autopsy due
to medical reasons, personal reasons, etc. If I were to rewrite I would say “ The patient declined
to undergo an autopsy procedure due to …”
3. Each of the following claims has two plausible senses that might easily give rise to
equivocation or a verbal dispute. To practise avoiding such problems, distinguish the
senses and express each interpretation in a way that makes it clearer than the original.
a. Convicted criminals must be made to pay for their crimes.
1. This could mean that convicted criminals should serve their sentences or face legal
consequences.
a. Clarification: "Convicted criminals must serve their sentences or face appropriate
legal consequences for their crimes."
2. This could also mean that convicted criminals should be financially responsible for their
crimes whether that be paying a fee or compensating the victims
a. Clarification: "Convicted criminals must be financially responsible for
compensating victims caused by their crimes."
b. Life continues after death.
1. This could mean that there is an afterlife beyond physical death
a. Clarification: "There is an afterlife or existence beyond physical death."
2. This could also mean that life, continues the biological processes such as decomposition
of an organism
a. Calrification: "Biological processes continue after death."
c. Enabling legislation should be introduced to make euthanasia possible.
1. This could mean that laws should be put in place to legalize euthanasia, allowing people
to choose assisted death
a. Clarification: “Legislation should be introduced to legalize euthanasia and allow
individuals to choose assisted death in certain circumstances."
2. This could also mean that laws should be introduced to regulate and oversee euthanasia
should it become legal
a. Clarification: "Legislation should be introduced to regulate and oversee the
practice of euthanasia if it were to be legalized”
4. The following arguments involve instances of ambiguity, vagueness, or equivocation.
Diagram the arguments and discuss the seriousness of the problem with language. Are
we able to use context to resolve the vagueness or ambiguity?
a. Every society is, of course, repressive to some extent. As Sigmund Freud pointed out,
repression is the price we pay for civilization.
Premise 1: Every society is repressive to some extent.
Premise 2: Repression is the price we pay for civilization.
Conclusion: Therefore, every society must pay the price of repression for civilization.
The problem is the ambiguity. This is in the term "repressive." It's unclear what exactly is meant
by it. It could be referring to government control, limitations on freedom, etc. Without a clear
definition, the argument becomes open to interpretation. This can lead to can lead to
misunderstandings or disagreements about the extent of repression in the society.
b. [Rt Hon. David Blunkett, home secretary of Great Britain, in 'Integration with Diversity:
Globalisation and the Renewal of Democracy and Civil Society', Rethinking Britishness (The
Foreign Policy Centre, 16 Sept. 2002)] The military engagement in Afghanistan illustrates not a
war of competing civilisations, but a defence of democratic states from terrorist attacks
sponsored by deep oppression and brutalisation. But democracy is not only defended in military
terms —it is defended in depth through the commitment of its citizens to its basic values. When
the people of New York pulled together after 11 September, they were displaying not just mutual
sympathy, support, and solidarity, but a patriotic commitment to their democracy. By that I mean
patriotism in its most decent, and deeply expressed sense, of civil virtue—a commitment to
one's community, its values and institutions. It follows that the strongest defence of democracy
resides in the engagement of every citizen with the community, from activity in the
neighbourhood, through to participation in formal politics.
Premise 1: Military engagement in Afghanistan defends democratic states from terrorist attacks.
Premise 2: Democracy is defended through citizens' commitment to its basic values.
Premise 3: The people of New York displayed patriotic commitment to democracy after 11
September.
Conclusion: Therefore, the strongest defense of democracy lies in citizens' engagement with
their community and its values.
The problem is ambiguity when they talk about patriotic commitment to democracy. Its not
defined what actions or behaviors constitute patriotic commitment in this context. Different
people may interpret this differently based on their cultural, ideological, or personal beliefs.