Fallacy of equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation happens when the same word is used with different meanings within the same argument, hiding the shift.

Example

“There are rights of man. Therefore women’s rights are missing.”
(“Man” shifts from “human beings” to “male”.)

Applied example (political)

“The state must be secular, therefore it cannot be ethical.”
(“Secular” shifts from "non-religious" to "without values".)

Applied example (mystical)

“Energy is real, therefore aura ‘energies’ are real.”
(“Energy” shifts from physical to metaphorical.)

Why it is fallacious

• It slides meanings without notice.
• It builds conclusions on ambiguity.
• It confuses technical and everyday senses.

How to spot it

• A key word appears with two senses.
• The argument depends on a double meaning.
• Terms are left undefined.

How to respond

• Ask for precise definitions.
• Separate the meanings and rebuild the argument.
• Show that with one fixed meaning the conclusion does not follow.