Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Critical Thinking #15: Equivocation" video.

  1. Your first example was far from clear. You used the implication of the word "high" in the second premise rather than the actual word, leading to confusion. That said, thoroughly enjoying the series.
    2
  2. No John, I appreciate that thank you. But as it was a tutorial on ways that the fallacy could have been manifested, don't you think citing the clearest example first, then leaving the more abstract examples till later would have provided the greatest clarity?
    1