Amber claims that, for mountain climbing, no shoes are better than Nikverse brand shoes. But that's ridiculous. Given the choice between no shoes and Nikverse brand shoes, no mountain climber would choose to climb without shoes. Above passage commit a fallacy. Specifically, it commit the fallacy of equivocation, and it commit the fallacy of amphiboly.

Above passage DOES. commit a fallacy. Specifically, it DOES NOT commit the fallacy of equivocation, and it DOES commit the fallacy of amphiboly.

Explanation:

Both fallacies are related to ambiguity, but there is an important difference between them. Equivocation usually focuses on two possible meanings of the same word. Those two meanings are used in different parts of the argument, which invalidates it. Imagine, for instance, an argument that uses the word "right" meaning both "legal entitlement" and "correct". That would be an equivocation.

Amphiboly usually focuses on the wrong interpretation given to a phrase or expression inside a sentence. Therefore, it is the context that allows for different interpretations to occur, even if the author's intention was not ambiguous. That is what we have in the passage we are analyzing here. "No shoes are better than Nikverse brand shoes" means that Nikverse are the best shoes. However, the context allowed for a different and erroneous interpretation. The person thought that "no shoes" referred to being barefoot. That is why he argues that "no shoes" being better is ridiculous. He thinks that wearing shoes is better than not wearing shoes, which was never the point the original author, Amber, meant.

i have to go with a for this one