The parentheses resolve what would be an amphiboly.    From Wordnik.com.  [Classical Logic] Reference

An instance of amphiboly may be read on the walls of Windsor.    From Wordnik.com.  [Deductive Logic] Reference

We are finally in position to show that there is no amphiboly in our language.    From Wordnik.com.  [Classical Logic] Reference

Examples such as the following depend upon amphiboly: ‘I wish that you the enemy may capture’.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

This fallacy has also in it an element of amphiboly in the questions, but it really depends upon combination.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

I think that you'll find the average intellectual capacity here to be more than sufficient to see through weak attempts at confusion through amphiboly.    From Wordnik.com.  [Innovation I] Reference

If, on the other hand, one had drawn a distinction, and questioned him on the ambiguous term or the amphiboly, the refutation would not have been a matter of uncertainty.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

If people never made two questions into one question, the fallacy that turns upon ambiguity and amphiboly would not have existed either, but either genuine refutation or none.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

For if refutation be an unambiguous contradiction arrived at from certain views, there could be no need to draw distinctions against amphiboly and ambiguity: they do not effect a proof.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

Those ways of producing the false appearance of an argument which depend on language are six in number: they are ambiguity, amphiboly, combination, division of words, accent, form of expression.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

Of the refutations, then, that depend upon ambiguity and amphiboly some contain some question with more than one meaning, while others contain a conclusion bearing a number of senses: e.g. in the proof that ‘speaking of the silent’ is possible, the conclusion has a double meaning, while in the proof that.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

The fallacies noted throughout are the standard ones discussed in Aristotle's De Sophisticis Elenchis: the fallacy of equivocation; the fallacy of accident; the fallacy of the composite and divided senses; the fallacy of the consequent; the fallacy of absolute and qualified senses; the fallacy of many causes of truth; amphiboly; improper supposition.    From Wordnik.com.  [Richard the Sophister] Reference

It often happens, however, that, though they see the amphiboly, people hesitate to draw such distinctions, because of the dense crowd of persons who propose questions of the kind, in order that they may not be thought to be obstructionists at every turn: then, though they would never have supposed that that was the point on which the argument turned, they often find themselves faced by a paradox.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

‘he who knows does not understand what he knows’ one of the questions contains an amphiboly.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

What I got was a great deal of subjective evidence based on the guilt by association and amphiboly logical fallacies.    From Wordnik.com.  [Possessing the Treasure] Reference

An amphiboly is an ambiguous grammatical construction that is very close to an equivocation between two senses of meaning.    From Wordnik.com.  [Larval Subjects .] Reference

The second rejoinder against the argument from ancestrality is one that Alexei has often evoked in our debates over correlationism and which I refer to as "the argument from amphiboly".    From Wordnik.com.  [Larval Subjects .] Reference

All the same, since if a man does not distinguish the senses of an amphiboly, it is not clear whether he has been confuted or has not been confuted, and since in arguments the right to distinguish them is granted, it is evident that to grant the question simply without drawing any distinction is a mistake, so that, even if not the man himself, at any rate his argument looks as though it had been refuted.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

Likewise also in a case of amphiboly.    From Wordnik.com.  [On Sophistical Refutations] Reference

You are both committing a fallacy of amphiboly.    From Wordnik.com.  [Bigotry Against Men In Childcare] Reference

Oetke finds an equivocal amphiboly between temporal and non-temporal senses of the termes in MMK 21.4: "How should there be production without destruction?.    From Wordnik.com.  [Joseph S. O'Leary homepage] Reference

“amphiboly”.    From Wordnik.com.  [Classical Logic] Reference