Two philosophers argue about whether a computer program that passes the Turing Test is 'conscious.' After an hour, they realize one means by 'conscious' any system that can respond adaptively to its environment, while the other means any system with subjective inner experience. Their disagreement immediately dissolves. This is an example of:
AA genuine dispute about consciousness, unresolved by the clarification
BA verbal dispute — they were using the same word with different definitions, so the apparent disagreement was about terminology rather than substance
CEquivocation — one philosopher was deliberately shifting the meaning of 'conscious' mid-argument
DA dispute about necessary conditions for consciousness that was resolved empirically
A verbal dispute is one where apparent disagreement stems from different definitions of a key term. Once each party clarifies what they mean, the disagreement evaporates — they were never disagreeing about the same thing. This is different from equivocation (option C), which involves one party shifting the meaning of a term within a single argument. Identifying verbal disputes is valuable because it allows debate to refocus on genuine substantive questions or on which definition is more useful for the purposes at hand.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
The definition 'A triangle is a polygon with three angles' is flawed. Which diagnostic best describes the flaw?
AIt is too broad — the definition lets in shapes that aren't triangles
BIt is too narrow — the definition excludes some genuine triangles
CIt is a verbal dispute — 'polygon' is not a well-defined term
DThe definition is correct and non-circular — angles uniquely identify triangles
A polygon with three angles also necessarily has three sides — and three vertices — so the definition is extensionally correct for triangles. Actually the subtler issue is that any triangle has three angles, but the definition 'three angles' is equivalent to 'three sides' for closed polygons, making it technically adequate. However, the common criticism is that it's circular (polygons are defined partly by their angles/vertices, so referring back to angles doesn't illuminate the concept). More importantly: a definition like 'a shape with fewer than 12 sides' is too broad (lets in non-triangles). The diagnostic: a too-broad definition has counterexamples that satisfy the conditions but aren't the thing defined.
Question 3 True / False
Nearly every philosophical dispute about a contested term like 'justice,' 'knowledge,' or 'freedom' is ultimately a verbal dispute that dissolves once participants clarify their definitions.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Verbal disputes are a subset of definitional disputes, not the whole set. Some disagreements persist even after both parties use the same definition — because they disagree about whether a borderline case falls under it (a genuine extensional dispute). And some are deeper still: competing definitions of 'knowledge' or 'justice' reflect incompatible theories about the nature of the thing. Getting the right definition of 'knowledge' isn't housekeeping — it is substantive philosophical work that tracks real facts about minds and justification. Dismissing all definitional disputes as verbal would prematurely foreclose important inquiry.
Question 4 True / False
A definition that is 'too broad' provides conditions that are sufficient but not necessary — meaning something can fail the conditions and still count as an instance of the concept.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This reverses the logic. A too-broad definition provides conditions that are NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT — things can meet the conditions without being instances of the concept, letting in non-examples. For example, 'a bachelor is an unmarried person' is too broad: being unmarried is necessary but not sufficient for being a bachelor (a married woman who becomes widowed is unmarried but not a bachelor). A too-narrow definition provides conditions that are sufficient but not necessary — everything that meets them is an instance, but there are genuine instances the definition excludes.
Question 5 Short Answer
What is equivocation, and why does it undermine an argument even when the argument's logical structure is valid?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Equivocation is the fallacy of using the same word with two different meanings in the same argument. A classic example: 'Laws govern everything in nature. There are laws against murder. Therefore, murder is impossible.' The word 'laws' shifts from natural regularities (descriptive) to legal statutes (prescriptive). The argument appears valid but actually has four terms disguised as three. Equivocation undermines even a structurally valid argument because validity only guarantees that if the premises are true in a consistent interpretation, the conclusion follows. If a key term changes meaning between a premise and the conclusion, the argument is actually invalid — it just looks valid because the same word appears in both places.
This is why conceptual clarity comes before truth-evaluation in serious argumentation. An argument can be logically valid (the structure is correct) while still committing equivocation and therefore failing to establish its conclusion. Spotting equivocation requires tracking not just whether the same word appears but whether it carries the same meaning throughout.