The Answering Machine

Speranza

Avramides in:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/remembering-michael-dummett/

"Park Town is where he raised his family, and he was as much a part of Park Town life as he was of university life. Over a cup of tea he would tell a story or make an observation — followed by his infectious giggle. Michael once explained that he made a telephone call only to be put through to the answering machine. He observed: “They call it an answering machine but it’s not. You can ask it questions, but it won’t give you any answers.”"

In symbols:

Fallacious:

"Michael once explained that he made a telephone call only to be put through to the answering₂machine. He observed: “They call it an answering₁machine but it’s not [an answering₁machine]. You can ask it questions, but it won’t give you any answers₁.”" [Followed by infectious giggle].

Non-Fallacious:

"Michael once explained that he made a telephone call only to be put through to the answering₂machine. He observed: “They call it an answering₂machine [but mind:] it’s not [an answering₁machine]. You can ask it questions, but it won’t give you any answers₁[Only answers₂].”"

As suggested elsewhere, the idea is to re-analyse the example alla Grice in terms of disimplicature and his [Grice's] 'modified Occam's razor': senses should not be multiplied beyond necessity.