The moment a test taker sees an answer choice that says, relies on an ambiguous use
of a key term, their brain just turns off and they hit select.
They think, well, the argument felt messy, so this must be it.
I, I used to do that all the time.
It sounds so smart, right?
Like, oh, the author was ambiguous, case closed.
Right, but genuine equivocation is actually really, really specific.
It requires one single word to shift meanings midstream, like mid argument.
Take the classic example: I have a legal right to eat potato chips for every meal,
therefore, it is the right thing to do.
Ah, so right shifted from legal entitlement to moral correctness.
Precisely.
And to test if that is actually happening, I use what I call the Synonym
Substitution Test.
It takes maybe 15 seconds.
You replace every instance of the suspect word with a plain English definition.
Okay, wait, walk me through that with a real argument, like,
like the classic treasurer case.
Okay, imagine a treasurer saying, our city cannot afford to buy new park benches
this year.
And then a council member responds, but can we really afford not to invest in our
public spaces?
Okay, let me try swapping the definitions.
In the treasurer's premise, afford means having actual budget funds available,
like cash in the bank.
But in the council member's question, can we afford not to,
afford suddenly means avoiding bad long term consequences.
Exactly.
If you plug those definitions back in, the argument collapses because they are
talking past each other using the exact same spelling.
That is a true equivocation flaw.
But people pick that choice even when the word does not shift at all.
Oh, constantly.
In fact, if you look at how LSAC writes these questions, choices like ambiguous use
of a term or shifts meaning of a key phrase are wrong answer traps.
They just are wrong 8 or 9 times out of 10 when you see them.
8 or 9 times out of 10?
That is absurdly high.
That is practically a trap by default.
It really is.
It is pure jargon bait.
The test makers know that when students feel confused by a dense passage,
they look for sophisticated sounding choices to bail them out.
I, I remember on my very first practice test block, I fell for that exact trap three
times in a single section.
I saw ambiguous term, thought, yeah, that reasoning was definitely muddy,
and clicked it without ever checking if a second definition even existed in the
text.
And that is why you need a hard rule.
I call it the 5 Second Elimination Rule.
If you cannot immediately point to the exact word on the page and state its two
different meanings in plain English, you cross that answer choice off instantly.
If you cannot name both meanings in five seconds, it is not equivocation.
Move on and find the actual structural gap or causal flaw.
That is all there is to it.
Do not let fancy language trick you into picking a flaw that is not on the page.