Subscription pricing
I am very confused as to what the flaw in the argument is. Could someone explain?
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"
0
I am very confused as to what the flaw in the argument is. Could someone explain?
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"
1 comments
The meaning of 'tall' is relative to the kind of thing whose size is being assessed. E.g. in relation to tulips, one foot could be exceedingly tall because most tulips are smaller. Nevertheless, one foot would not also qualify as tall in relation to plants in general. For example, trees are typically much taller than one foot.
The flaw in the argument thus is one of equivocation. The meaning of a term (here, 'tall') implausibly shifts over the course of argument. (C) captures this with a corresponding relative term.