CountMole14477
Are the following claims vague or ambiguous or both? If vague,…
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.
b. Vitamin E is good for aging people.
c. [from Shakespeare’s Henry VI] The duke yet lives that Henry shall 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.
b. The patient refused an autopsy.
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.
b. Life continues after death.
c. Enabling legislation should be introduced to make euthanasia possible.
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.
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 virtuea 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.
