The equivocation fallacy incorporates an ambiguous word or phrase into an argument. The word or phrase will convey different meanings throughout different parts of the argument. The equivocation fallacy operates as an “if/then” statement to some extent. First, the argument will make a statement using the word or phrase, this can be a fact or an opinion. Then, utilizing the same word or phrase, the argument will deduce a fact based on the previous statement. In this new statement, however, the word or phrase will have a different meaning than the one previously discussed. This will discredit the argument made, not only weakening the argument but also the author's credibility. To avoid writing equivocation fallacies, examine arguments that reference a word or phrase multiple times and ensure that the meaning of word or phrase is consistent throughout the argument. 

“Noisy children are a real headache. Two aspirin will make a headache go away. Therefore, two aspirin will make noisy children go away.”

The writer uses figurative language to describe their annoyance after caring for troublesome children. By using the word “headache,” the writer references a personal feeling rather than the medical condition. Later using the alternative definition of headache, a false interchangeability is created. The consumption of aspirin to treat a physical condition is conflated with the ability for aspirin to relieve stress or reduce irritability.

_______________________________________________________________________________

“I don't see how you can say you're an ethical person. It's so hard to get you to do anything; your work ethic is so bad”

The writer uses two definitions of the word ethic, conflating them in order to make an argument. In the first sentence, ethical is defined as morally good and correct. In the second sentence, ethic refers to the value of work, and having the commitment to complete a job. One can be morally ethical without the ability to work diligently.

_______________________________________________________________________________

“Only man is logical. No woman is a man. Women are not logical.”

In the first sentence, man refers to “mankind,” or humankind. In the second sentence, man means “maleness”. Although the connection between sentences appears valid, the shift in the meaning of “man” makes this argument a fallacy.

The mind-reading fallacy creates an argument based on assumptions of what another is thinking or feeling. The mind-reading fallacy can be detrimental to an argument as the argument is not based on facts, but based on assumed feelings or thoughts. Assuming the thoughts, beliefs, and feelings of another can be detrimental as the assumption may not be true. For instance, an argument claims Politician A is better than Politician B because Politician A thinks a certain way about a law. Although Politician A has never mentioned or shared his beliefs about the law, the author of the argument assumes Politician A supports the law because Politician A is friends with Politician C, a huge advocate for said law. The reasoning of the argument is based on an assumption and not a known fact, creating a weak and falsifiable argument. 

“I know who Clark Kent is. I do not know who Superman is. Therefore, Clark Kent is not Superman.”

In this example of the mind-reading fallacy, lack of information is confused for affirmative knowledge, leading to a false conclusion. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

“Peter Parker said he’s been at home all day and never heard the doorbell, so the delivery man must not have come.”

This scenario assumes that Parker could hear the doorbell from within his home. The claim also makes the assumption that the delivery man would ring the doorbell when delivering a package. Broad speculation without evidence makes this example a logical fallacy.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"It would be a grave mistake to say that we're going to buy up a bad debt that resulted from the bad decisions of these people and then allow them to get millions of dollars on the way out. The American people don't want that to happen, and it shouldn't happen." - Rep. Barney Frank

In his statement, Representative Frank assumes that all Americans do not want financial companies to be bailed out by the government. However, Frank cannot possibly know the thoughts and policy positions of all 330 million Americans. This is a logical fallacy because Frank’s generalization is based upon his experiences with only some Americans, not all of them as he claims.

“When researching her presentation about resources for expecting parents in San Luis Obispo, Mike Huckabee searches for the number of crisis pregnancy centers in the county. A news article by a Christian paper states there are no such centers in the region. Huckabee concludes there is a lack of resources for expecting parents."

Using biased terms which are only used by sources upholding one view of a topic leads to flawed conclusions. The solution is to use general search terms, or to search with the terms used by both sides of a topic. In this example, Huckabee could have searched for both crisis pregnancy centers and reproductive healthcare facilities, a term often used for facilities that provide services for expecting parents. These new search terms would yield sources documenting the precedence of reproductive healthcare facilities in San Luis Obispo County, disproving Huckabee’s conclusion that there is a lack of resources.

_______________________________________________________________________________

“To prove his belief that natural gas production does not affect groundwater quality, Jonny Rockefeller only references reports by the National Petroleum Council.”

Since the National Petroleum Council’s “...operations are privately funded through the voluntary contributions of its members,” (“National Petroleum Council Origin And Operations”) their findings are subject to bias. If Rockefeller was to ethically research his topic, he would reference a variety of peer-reviewed studies funded by both private donations and public grants. 

Hasty Generalization is the act of claiming a certain topic with little to no evidence to back up the claim. A small sample is taken from a large portion of data and a claim is made using that small sample, but it is applied to the large portion of data which is false. This is also called over-generalization where there isn’t enough evidence to back up this claim. The use of the hasty generalization fallacy in writing can make an argument weaker because it gives readers falsified information that is not fact.

“Her diet consisted only of burgers, and she lived to be 102. That means burgers must be the healthiest food on the planet”. 

She is claiming that burgers are healthy, but she only has a single piece of data to back up her claim. There needs to be a bigger pool of data for this statement to have any sort of validity.

_______________________________________________________________________________

An example of hasty generalization is stated: “a traveler from another country who visited New York City and concludes that most Americans don’t own cars” 

He is making an overgeneralization because even though that might be true the traveler only visited New York and can’t make a statement about the whole country. Overgeneralizing in an essay can lead to false data which can make an argument invalid.

_______________________________________________________________________________

“Sally had an adverse reaction to a medicine that she took, and so she warned her friends not to take that same medicine because they will have that reaction too.” (Yashinsky). 

Sally telling her friends not to take the medicine because she had a bad reaction is wrong because not everyone will have the same reaction as her. She could have just explained her bad experience with the medicine without telling her friends not to take it.

A claim made in a STEM research paper that doesn’t have enough data to back up the claim will make the essay look unprofessional. Hasty Generalization in an essay can weaken an argument and should be avoided. The use of false data in a research paper is something that every student should avoid. That is why these students should read about this fallacy before writing their paper. 

Cherry picking is the selection of evidence or sources that supports an argument while disregarding ones that might contradict it. Writers can either be unaware or deliberately cherry pick information. Unintentional cherry picking derives from confirmation bias, where people focus on information that confirms their previous beliefs. Intentional cherry picking is where authors ignore the thousands of scholarly research and ideas, while focusing on the couple of articles that support their argument. Arguments supported by cherry picked arguments are misleading as readers are missing crucial information that formulate their educated decisions and claims. In addition to spreading misinformation, if the readers discover that an argument was made based off of cherry picking, it weakens the author's credibility and thus leads to an ineffective argument.

"There is a new study based on the inputs of thousands of scientists in a certain field and finds that 99% of them agree with the consensus position on a certain phenomenon, and only 1% of them disagree with it."

Cherry picking: “A recent study found that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the consensus position of this phenomenon.”

Revised: “A recent study found that the vast majority of scientists support the consensus position on this phenomenon, but that nevertheless, there are still some scientists who oppose it.”

As shown above, the statement formulated with cherry-picked information portrays a false narrative. While only 1% of scientists disagree with the certain phenomenon, since the writer focuses on the fact that scientists are disagreeing, they make the statement “plenty of scientists who disagree”.

_______________________________________________________________________________

“To prove cigarette smoking is not harmful to your health, I cite my grandpa, a ninety-year-old smoker who runs marathons.”

The use of anecdotal evidence is a form of cherry-picking as the writer is referring back to their personal observations and experiences. Formulating an argument based on this evidence can lead to a weak and loosely supported argument.

As scholars, the ability to understand multiple sides of an argument is vital. Strong arguments are formed when authors account for both sides, ones that support and ones that contradict. Cherry picking therefore is detrimental to both writers and readers. Writer’s arguments are weakened and their credibility is questioned because they fail to understand the importance of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias as stated in the definition is where people focus on information that confirms their previous beliefs. Cherry picking spreads misinformation to consumers and thus leads to speculation and beliefs that are backed by these writings that were backed by cherry picked information.