Huwebes, Disyembre 5, 2013

Definition

A definition is a statement that gives the meaning of  a term.
-          Derived from the Latin word definire which means to enclose within limits or to make boundaries or limits
-          The boundary of a field is defined by indicating the limits within which a field is confined and bounded which it is marked off from other fields; similarly, a term is defined by indicating the limits within which it is used and by which it is marked off from other terms.
-          Definition is not a proposition or sentence but a term, generally a complex term.

Parts of a Definition
1.       Definiendum – the word that is defined
2.       Definiens – the phrase that explains the definiendum

Kinds of Definition
I.                    Kinds of Definition Based on Usage

A.      Lexical Definition
A lexical definition (Latin, lexis which means “word”) is the definition of a word according to the meaning customarily assigned to it by the community of users. It simply reports the meaning which a word already has among the users of the language in which the word occurs. A dictionary or lexicon comprises this kind of definition.
E.g.:   Lexicon - dictionary: a reference book that alphabetically lists words and their meanings, e.g. of an ancient language
                            River -     large natural channel of water: a natural stream of water that flows through land and empties into a body of water such as an ocean or lake

B.      Stipulative Definition
A stipulative definition is a kind of definition in which a new word or term is coined in order to signify a meaning or object for which no word in the language has previously been given.
For example, the word selfie has been invented in order to signify a person who loves to take picture of himself or herself.
Suppose that another living creature was found in another planet. Surely, there is no word in our language to signify such creature. We, then, have to stipulate that the creature shall be known by this or that particular name. Doing this means making a stipulative definition.

C.      Precising Definition
The purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the vagueness of a word. There are terms in our language which must have precise definitions because some future actions are based on our knowledge of them.
For example, the arguments for or against contraception requires a clear, precise, and unambiguous definition of life of human organism because such definition implies the moral bearing of contraception.
Other examples which need precising definitions are legal terms like “theft”, “murder”, “private property”, “rights”, and “sovereignty” since the definition sets the condition of understanding laws and legislative praxis.

D.      Theoretical Definition
Theoretical definitions attempt to define an object according to its true nature, and not necessarily according to the way the word is used by a community of users.
Take, for instance, the definition of table salt as sodium chloride. Unless the persons involved have some acquaintance with elementary chemistry, this would be a bad definition, for it would define the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar. For those acquainted with the principles of chemistry, however, this definition is the best one, for it reveals the real nature of salt. Other familiar theoretical definitions are “force equals mass times acceleration,” or “light is electromagnetic energy (of a certain range of wavelengths).” For scientific purposes, theoretical definitions are necessary and cannot be replaced by other types of definitions. A theoretical definition answers the question, “What really is x?” where “x” is the object whose name is to be defined.
Philosophers, too, are interested in theoretical definitions. The desire to know what is really the nature of “human person”, “knowledge”, “existence”, “being”, “beauty” etc., tells us why philosophy today have so many branches like Philosophy of the Human Person, Epistemology, Existentialism, Metaphysics, and Aesthetics which endeavour to get correct theoretical definitions of the objects just mentioned.

E.       Persuasive Definition
Some definitions are intended either mainly or at least partly to influence attitudes. Persuasive definition, under which these definitions are categorized, incites either favourable or unfavourable responses to the object so defined. Here are examples of persuasive definitions:
Democracy is a government of the weak, inferior race.
Democracy is a government of the people by the people for the people.
A dictator is one who achieves greatness by violence in the political sphere.
Love is only an illusion on people who do not know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Contraception is the deliberate prevention of unwanted pregnancy so that families may be able to give the best care to their children.
Contraception is the wilful interference of God’s will so that children who would have seen the light of day are deliberately prevented from doing so.
Persuasive is not really concerned with revealing the true nature of the concept defined but of influencing attitude by using phrases that appeal to one’s emotion.

II.                  Kinds of Definition Based on Extension and Intension

A.      Extensional Definition
Also known as Denotative Definition, it is a way of defining a word based on giving examples of the things or objects referred to by a term. For example, defining a computer for someone who never saw a computer before would be utterly lacking. It is important, therefore, to show him or her a computer. Showing a computer to describe a term “computer” is an extensional definition.
                2 Types:
1.       Definition by Example – a definition in which we list or give examples of the objects denoted by the term
2.       Ostensive – an extensional definition which merely points out an object referred by a term.
3.       Quasi-ostensive – an extensional definition which does not only point the object referred to by the term but also gives a description about the object being pointed out.
Extensional or denotative definitions are important especially when a term requires a demonstration in order to be understood. For example, one cannot define “color red” without pointing to something that is of color red.
There are, however, serious limitations of extensional or denotative definitions. One limitation is that a person who uses this kind of definition is that he may not be able to articulate what the thing really is because he knows only what the thing is like. Articulation of meaning is important because it clarifies ambiguity in understanding, and more importantly, it indicates the depth of understanding a person has of a particular term. Another reason is that extensional definitions cannot define terms that have no extension. For instance, how can we extensionally define terms like “length”, “infinite”, “nothingness”, “value”, etc?

B.      Intensional Definition
Also known as connotative definition or definition by comprehension, it is a way of defining a word by giving its meaning. Giving the meaning of the term may be done through giving its etymological origin or its synonym, or stating the essential attributes of the concept signified by the term.
4 Types:
1.       Etymological Definition - Defines a word by giving the meaning of the word or words from which it is derived. E.g. Philosophy is derived from philos, a Greek word which means “loving,” and Sophia, which means “wisdom”.
2.       Definition by Synonym - Defines a word by giving a synonym (either of the same language as the word to be defined or of a different language) that is better known than the word to be defined. E.g. anthropos means man, to confect means to put together
3.       Operational Definition – A type of intensional definition widely used in science. It defines a word or an occurrence by stating the necessary conditions that are required in order for something to be called such a term. It has a form “Something is X, if and only if…”
For instance, X is magnetic, if and only if, whenever any piece of iron, nickel or cobalt is placed closed to it, it attracts the latter toward itself.
Another example: X is harder than Y, if and only if, when a point of X is drawn on the surface of Y, X scratches Y.
4.       Definition by Genus and Difference or Real Definition – is regarded as the best type of definition because it tells us what a thing really is. It is defining a term by giving a larger class to which the concept signified by the term belongs (called as genus) and stating the properties that a concept has that differentiates it from other concepts under the same genus (called as difference).
For example:
Man is a rational animal. (“Animal” is the genus because it is the larger class to which the concept “man” belongs. “Rational” is the difference because it is what differs man from all other animals.)
Girl is a young woman. (Genus = woman; Difference = young)
Triangle is a plane figure bounded by three straight lines. (Genus = plane figure; Difference = bounded by three straight lines)

Limits of Real Definition:
a.        Only common terms can be defined by real definition. Proper names such as names of places, things, or people are identified rather than defined.
b.      Transcendental concepts (“being”, “thing”, “something”, and so on) cannot be defined by a strict definition but can only be described.
c.       Supreme genera (“being”, “substance”) cannot be defined by real definition because they do not have genus.
d.      Immediate data of experience like color, taste, smell, etc. cannot be defined by real definition.


Rules of Definition:
1.       A definition should state the essential attributes of the object being defined.
Essential attributes are attributes which make the object what it is. So, a good definition of “X” must be able to answer the question “What really is X?”
The definition of man as a rational animal satisfies this criterion, for it tells us what man really is. However, defining man as an animal who is capable of speech violates this rule because being able to speak is not what makes man as “man”.

2.       A definition should be neither too broad nor too narrow.
When a definition is too broad, it might include objects which are not proper extensions of the term, and when it is too narrow, it might exclude objects which are really extensions of the term.
For instance, if we define man as a bipedal mammal then we have to include, based on that definition, other mammals which are also bipedal like apes. Or, if we define man as a rational animal with two legs, two hands, and one head, then our definition is too narrow since it would exclude people who do not have complete legs or hands.

3.       A definition must not be circular.
This means that the definiendum must not appear in the definiens. A definition violates this rule when the term that is supposed to be defined is used to define itself.
Examples of definition that violates this rule:
                “Sympathy” is the feeling of a person who feels sympathetic.
                “Fallacy” is an argument that is fallacious.
A “circle” is a plane figure that has a circular shape.

4.       A definition should not be expressed in figurative, obscure and ambiguous language.
Good definitions do not use metaphor or figurative languages. The purpose of definition is to give us clear idea of what a thing is, and using figurative language will not allow us to achieve that. No matter how appealing such a definition, still it gives no clear idea of what it tries to define. It also defeats the purpose of definition if we define words using other words that are more unfamiliar and obscure.
Examples of definition that violates this rule:
                An elephant is an animal with a long prosboscis.
                A lover is someone who gives you sunshine.
                God is the alpha and the omega.

5.       A definition should as much as possible be affirmative, rather than negative.
The purpose of definition is primarily to tell us what a thing is, not what a thing is not.
Examples of definition that violate this rule:
                A plant is a living thing that is not an animal.
                A girl is a person who is not a boy.
                Life means the opposite of death.
But there are terms which are essentially negative, and a defining such terms requires negative definition. Hence, such negative definitions do not violate this rule. Here are the examples:
                A bald person is someone who has no hair in the head.
                A mute person is someone who cannot speak.

                Nothingness is the absence of existence.

Martes, Nobyembre 19, 2013

SUPPOSITION OF TERMS


                Supposition is the property by which a term stands for a definite one of the various things it can stand for (Bacchuber, 1957, p.230). A term can stand as a material image, as a subject or predicate of a sentence, as something pertaining a reality, or as pertaining to something or someone in reality.
Consider these examples:
1.       Chair has five letters.
2.       Chair is an absolute concept.
3.       Chair is a furniture.
4.       A chair is used to block the pathway.
In Example 1, “chair” stands as a material image, the word itself. In Example 2, “chair” stands for an essence or whatness that exists only in the mind; that is because the whatness of “chair” in this example cannot be “absolute concept” except only in the mind. In Example 3, “chair” stands for it real essence or whatness because it tells us what the chair really is. It must be noted that in this example the supposition of “chair” does not actually imply an actual existence of a chair.[1] In Example 4, however, “chair” stands for an actually existing chair. Yet in all four examples, “chair” has exactly the same meaning, signification, and definition; that is, the examples do not indicate equivocal meanings of the term “chair”.

                Shift in suppositions of terms in reasoning will lead us into error. Thus, to avoid this kind of error, it is important to be able to identify the supposition of a particular term in a particular statement.
                Consider this invalid argument:
Philosophy means love of wisdom. Existentialism is a philosophy. Hence, existentialism means love of wisdom.
                One who does not know anything about supposition will readily claim that this argument is valid. However, deeper analysis will show that this argument is invalid. We will explain why this is so after we discussed the kinds of supposition.



KINDS OF SUPPOSITION
A.      Material Supposition
It is the use of a term for the spoken or written sign itself, but not for what it signifies (Bacchuber, 1957, p.231). In the following examples, the supposition of “chair” is material: “Chair rhymes with hair,” and “Chair has R as its last letter”. In all these usages, chair is really a furniture, but the fact that chair’s being a furniture has nothing to do with the fact chair rhymes with hair, or that its last letter is R. Hence, in these examples we only consider the material make up of the word “chair”.

B.      Formal Supposition
Formal supposition is the use of a term not for the sign itself, but for what it signifies. In the example “Chair is a furniture”, chair has a formal supposition because it is not the word chair that is a furniture but what the chair signifies that is a furniture.

Types of Formal Supposition
1.       Logical Supposition
It is the use of a term for what it signifies not as it exists in the real order but as it exists only in the mind. For example, “chair” can signify as concept, as a subject of a sentence, as inferior to the term “furniture”, etc., but in all of these significations, “chair” does not refer to the chair in the real order but to the chair that is a product of mental construct.
Other examples:
        Man is an absolute concept.
        Elephant is the subject of the sentence “No elephants are pink”.
        Monkey is inferior to the term mammal.

2.       Real Supposition
It is the use of a term for what it signifies in the real order. The supposition of chair is real in the sentence, “The chair is used to block the pathway” because it refers to something in the real order.
Other examples:
        Man is a rational animal.
        Elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.
        This monkey is a primate.
Real supposition is on one hand, either absolute or personal, and on the other hand, either essential or accidental.
        Types of Real Supposition
a.       Absolute and Personal
A real supposition is absolute if it is used to refer to the whatness or essence as such and not to something or someone that bears this whatness or essence. For example, in the sentence “Man is rational”, man refers not to anyone but to the essence of man as such.
        Other examples:
                        Elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.
                        Chair is a furniture designed as a single seat.
                        Kindness is the highest virtue.
A real supposition is personal if it is used to refer not to the whatness or essence as such but to something or someone that bears this whatness or essence. In the sentence “The man is rational”, man refers to someone who has the essence of “man”; hence, it is personal.
        Other examples:
                        The elephant I saw yesterday has a very long proboscis.
                        A chair is used to block the pathway.
                        These persons are innocent.
It is very important to note that statements using terms with absolute supposition do not assert the actual existence of the terms’ signified objects. For example, the sentence “Superman is a superhero” does not imply the existence of Superman in reality. This is not true, however, in statements using terms with personal supposition. For example, the statement “Superman saved Mary Jane” implies the existence of Superman in the actual order.
b.      Essential and Accidental
A real supposition is essential if the term is predicated of essential attributes, i.e., attributes that make a thing or a substance what it is. In the sentence “Man is rational”, man has an essential supposition because rational is an essential attribute that makes man as man.
        Other examples:
                        The elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.
                        Chair is a furniture.
                        All men are mortals.
A real supposition is accidental is the term is predicated of accidental attributes, i.e., attributes that do not make a thing or substance what it is. In the sentence, “A man took his seat”, man has an accidental supposition because taking a seat is not what makes man as man.
        Other examples:
                        Elephants can be used in circuses.
                        The man has a dirty face.
                        Birds migrate from one continent to another.


Exercise (taken from Bacchuber, 1957, p.235)
Which of the kinds of supposition treated in this section are illustrated by “man” (or “men”) in each of the following propositions?
1.       Man is a rational animal.
2.       Man is one syllable.
3.       Man is a universal concept.
4.       Man is predicable of many in exactly the same sense.
5.       Man is a creature.
6.       All men are mortal.
7.       Man is mortal.
8.       This man is mortal.
9.       Man exists and has existed for many thousands of years.
10.   Take man away from woman and all you have left is wo.
11.   Some men are singing.
12.   “Some men” is the subject of the last proposition.
13.   A man is a week and sinful creature.
14.   A man made those footprints.
15.   Man has three letters.



[1] For another example, consider the sentence “Superman is a superhero.” The term “superman” has the same supposition with that of Example 3; and as what we said with that example, this same example does not imply the actual existence of its subject. However, if the sentence is “Superman went to New York”, the supposition of “superman” here implies the actual existence of “superman” which is the same with that of Example 4.

Correct Usage of Concepts & Terms in Reasoning


                Since concept always points to itself, it follows that it is always one and the same regardless of the language being used. For example, I cannot have a concept of a “table” when in fact I am referring to a chair, and vice versa.
Since this is the case, one important criterion for a reasoning to be called logical is that concepts are not confused with one another. In Filipino, we commonly attribute the act of confusing and misinterpreting concepts as pamimilosopo. An example would be clear: a mother called her son matigas ang ulo (hard-headed) because he is so stubborn, but the son reacted that his head is just hard as anybody else, because no head is soft! The son here confuses the concept of hard-headedness and that of having a hard head. Ergo, other than being called matigas ang ulo, the mother adds that her son is also a pilosopo; that is, one who interprets things obscurely.
To aid us in pointing the error of reasoning due to confusion of concepts or terms, it is very important to know what kinds of concepts or terms there are and the laws that govern their relationship with one another.

KINDS OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS
A.      Inferior and Superior Terms
1.       Inferior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with a superior term by way of specificity. That is, the inferior is the specification of the superior term. If the superior term is animal, then inferior terms could be bird, fish, deer, etc.
2.       Superior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with the inferior term by way of generality. That is, the superior term is the general concept of which the inferior term is a member. For example, if the inferior term is bird or cat, then its superior term is animal. If the inferior term is Filipino, then the superior term is human being.

The general rule in dealing with superior and inferior terms is that what is true with a superior term may not be true with an inferior term, but what is true with an inferior term is always true with a superior term.

This example is invalid:
        He is a teacher.
        Therefore he is a college instructor.
It does not follow that if one is a teacher (superior term) then one is also a college instructor (inferior term) since one can be a teacher without being a college instructor.
But the reverse is valid:
        He is a college instructor.
        Therefore he is a teacher.

This one is incorrect:
        If it is a reptile, then it is a snake.

This one, however, is correct:
        If it is chicken, then it is a bird.
       
B.      Concrete and Abstract Concept
1.       Concrete – is a concept that presents to the mind an individual or a subject possessing a particular attribute
2.       Abstract – is purely an attribute that does not present to the mind any subject or individual
Examples:
                Concrete                              Abstract
                animal                                   “animality”
                long                                       “length”
                white                                    “whiteness”
                human                                  “humanness/humanity”
                high                                       “height”

In making statements using these concepts, one must remember that a concrete term cannot be predicated with an abstract term, and vice versa.

For example:
                These are incorrect:
                                The top of Mount Apo is height.
                                “The top of Mount Apo” is a concrete term while “height” is an abstract term.

Humanity is going around in circle.
If not considered as metaphor, this statement would be incorrect since, strictly speaking, “going around in circle” (concrete) refers to someone so it cannot be affirmed of “humanity” (abstract term) which does not refer to anyone.

The following examples commit the same error:
Drinking eight glasses of water a day is goodness.
Beauty harms people.
Love can kill you.



C.      Absolute and Connotative
1.       Absolute – a concept that presents into the mind a substance. A substance is something that is capable of existing on its own as it is.
2.       Connotative – a concept that presents into the mind something that presupposes a substance.

Examples:
Absolute                      Connotative
man                               lazy
sun                                 luminous
wall                                white

Wall exists as a substance, but white does not. This means that we do not see white in itself; what we see is a white wall or a white cloth or a white dress. So white presupposes an absolute concept (substance) like wall or cloth or dress in order to exist. In the same way, we do not encounter lazy as it is, what we encounter is a lazy person or a lazy animal. All adjectives are connotative.

One cannot make use of connotative concepts without presupposing absolute concepts.

For example, one cannot say:

                                The brown jumped over the lazy dog near the river bank, or

The big walked in the dark.
               
D.      Unconnected Concepts
Concepts are unconnected if both of them are inferior that neither oppose nor include one another. They are called unconnected because the truth value of one inferior term does not imply, or is not necessarily connected to, the truth value of the other inferior term. For example, the statement “Some birds migrated” does not have anything to do with the statement “Some zebras migrated” because what can be true to a bird may not be true to a zebra, both of which are inferior to the term animal, so they are unconnected.

Hence, the general rule is that an inferior term cannot be inferred from another inferior term.
               
                Here are examples which violate this rule:
                                He is bald.
                                Therefore, he is mute.
                               
Filipinos are hospitable, so it follows that Canadians are hospitable also.

                                Some senators are lawyers; therefore, some congressmen are lawyers.

E.       Connected Concepts
These are concepts so related to one another that one either exclude or include the other. There are various types of connected concepts. These are:

1.       Concepts that Include One Another
Examples of these concepts are synonymous terms, while others are an inferior term and a superior term. There are also abstract concepts that are so related with one another that one cannot be thought without including the other. Examples of these concepts could be justice and fairness, freedom and responsibility, etc. However, the question of whether these abstract concepts are really related to one another is a philosophical problem and could not be dealt properly here.

a.       Synonymous terms
One may interchange a term with another synonymous term without changing the original meaning that one tries to convey. So, if reasoning proceeds from one term to another synonymous term, it is valid.
                                Example:
                                                Those who labor must receive credit.
                                                The reward must be in a form of ready money.
                                                Therefore, those who work must receive cash.
There are three pairs of synonymous terms in this valid argument: “labor-work”, “credit-reward”, “ready money-cash”.

b.      Superior and Inferior terms
A superior and an inferior term include one another because both of them can be true in a substance or individual. For example, something is both a bird and animal, and it would be impossible to be a bird without being an animal. However, the extent of their inclusion to one another is only limited in that a superior term and an inferior term may also not be true in a substance or individual. For example, something can be an animal but not a bird.

Hence, from this observation, we conclude that what is being affirmed to an inferior term cannot be denied to a superior term, but not vice versa.

These examples are invalid:
That thing is a plane. So, it is not a vehicle.
That thing is a bird. Therefore it is a sparrow.

                                                These examples, however, are valid:
                                                                That thing is a plane, so it is a vehicle.
                                                                That thing is a bird, so it may be a sparrow.

2.       Concepts that Exclude One Another
These are concepts whose presence of one necessarily excludes the other although one cannot be realized without the other.

These are the types of concepts that exclude one another:
                                   
a.       Relative Concepts
They are called relative concepts because even if they cannot be simultaneously true in a substance or individual and are also not opposed to one another, still one cannot be realized without the other. For example the concepts husband and wife are relative concepts. Even if no one can be both a husband and a wife, and even if husband and wife are not opposed to each other, no one can be called a husband without a concept of wife just as nobody can be called a wife if there is no concept of husband.

Other examples:
                parent – offspring
                teacher – student
                adviser – advisee
                brother – brother/sister

Examples of incorrect statements using relative concepts:
                I am your father but you are not my son.
                Rex is a follower who does not follow anyone.
                                                “Don Quixote is a lover without a loved one.”

b.      Contrary Concepts
These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one is necessarily a negation of the other, but whose negation of one does not necessarily mean an affirmation of the other. For example, the concepts black and white are contrary concepts, so that if something is black (affirmation), then that something cannot be white (negation); but, if something is not black (negation), it does not necessarily mean that that thing is white (affirmation).

Other examples:
                good – evil                                          rational - irrational
                light – darkness                                                motivated - unmotivated
                boy – girl                                              intentional - unintentional
                dead – alive                                        logical – illogical

These are invalid arguments that use contrary concepts:
                The font color is not black, so it is white.
                If one is not a boy, then that one is a girl.
                That thing is not alive. Therefore it is dead.

Let us explain some of them. It does not mean that if one is not a boy then that one  is already a girl since it is possible that the one being referred to may not have any sex at all. Or, if a thing is not alive, it does not mean that it is already dead; for example, we do not call a table or a chair or a stone dead although they are not alive.

c.       Contradictory Concepts
These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one necessarily entails negation of the other, and vice versa. For example, black and non-black are contradictory concepts, so if something is black then it is not a non-black, or if something is a non-black then it is not black.

Other examples:
                life – lifeless
                man – non-man
                rational – non-rational
                motivated – non-motivated

Sometimes, there is confusion between a negative contrary concept and a negative contradictory concept.              For example, one confuses between ­non-rational and irrational, or non-motivated and unmotivated. Although these concepts appear to be analogous or synonymous still they are different. That is, it does not mean that if one is non-rational, then that one is irrational, or if something is non-motivated, it does not mean that it is unmotivated. But the reverse is not true: if something is dead, surely it is lifeless, or if something is white­, surely it is non-black.

Examples of invalid arguments because of confusion between contrary and contradictory concepts:
               
This life-form is non-male. So, it is a female.
                The crowd is non-organized, so it is disorganized.
                The feeling is painless; therefore it is pleasurable.

                                These examples, however, are valid:
                                                The feeling is painful; therefore it is not pleasurable.
                                                The crowd is organized, so it not disorganized.
                                                The man is blind. Thus, he is sightless.

F.       Univocal, Equivocal and Analogous Terms
Distinction between univocal, equivocal and analogous terms is important because it guides us in understanding whether or not a discourse using any of these kinds of terms deserves merit. Usually, incorrect reasoning is brought about by confusion on how the term is being used in a particular discourse.

Let us take this example:
                Ilonggo: Magkadto ta karon. (We will go later)
                Cebuano: Tara na! (Let’s go)
                Ilonggo: Hambal ko karon lang. (I said we’ll go later)
                Cebuano: Karon gani. Tara na! (You said “now”, so let’s go)
                                                                                                                             
                Karon in this discourse is equivocal. In one sense, it means “later”; in the other sense, it means “now”. Thus, both the Ilonggo and and the Cebuano have ignorantly misinterpreted each other.

                Consider another example:
                                Pastor: Let us give our hearts to God.
                                Child: Would I not die if I do it?
                                Pastor: Yes dear child, but to die in God means life.

                Surely, the child and the pastor do not mean the same thing.


1.       Univocal Terms
A term is univocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more but in exactly the same sense.
                Examples:
                                My men are hungry, but your men were filled.
                                “Pablo” and “Yolanda” are strong typhoons.
                                Arroyo and Aquino were senators.
               
2.       Equivocal Terms
A term is equivocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a completely different sense.
                Examples:
                                “Yolanda” is a typhoon and a girl.
                                Alexander is a man; the picture on the wall is a man.
                                A date is a time, but it is also a romantic appointment.

3.       Analogous Terms
A term is analogous if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a sense that is partly the same and partly different.
                Examples:
The examination test is also a test of character.
I am healthy; the farm is healthy.
The warriors who died in the battle are warriors of peace.

To prevent error in reasoning, it is very important that terms are used univocally. Otherwise, confusion could arise.
                Examples:
                                All persons are mortals. The picture on the wall is a person.
                                Therefore, the picture in the wall is mortal.
                               
                                Warriors kill. The child who defeated cancer is a warrior.
                                Therefore, the child kills.

The person in the first example equivocal, while the warrior in the second is analogous, both of which commit the same error.