Fallacies of Presumption

fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions
are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical errors, but are nevertheless commonly classed as fallacies. Fallacies of
presumption begin with a false (or at least unwarranted) assumption, and so fail to establish their conclusion.
Arguments involving false dilemmas, complex questions, or circularity all commit fallacies of presumption: false
dilemmas assume that there are no other options to consider; complex questions assume that a state of affairs holds
when it may not; circular arguments assume precisely the thing that they seek to prove. In each case, the assumption is
problematic, and prevents the argument from establishing its conclusion.
1.

Complex Question
presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered:

Have you tried to stop watching too much television?

If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.
If not, then you must still be watching too much television.
Therefore, you watch too much television.
-

In a somewhat more subtle fashion, this involves the same difficulty as the previous fallacy. We would not willingly
agree to the first premise unless we already accepted the truth of the conclusion that the argument is supposed to
prove.
committed when a question contains a hidden assumption that any response would automatically grant. Such
questions are generally designed to trap the respondent into admitting something damaging.
is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers
appear to endorse that assumption.

Examples
Have you stopped beating your wife? This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat your wife, a
presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse.
Are you going to admit that youre wrong?
Answering yes to this question is an admission of guilt. Answering no to the question implies that the accused
accepts that he is in the wrong, but will not admit it. No room is left to protest ones innocence. This is therefore a
complex question, and a subtle false dilemma.
2.
-

False Cause (non- cause pro cause)

infers the presence of a causal connectionsimply because events appear to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc,
ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.

The moon was full on Thursday evening.

On Friday morning I overslept.
Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.
3.

Petitio Pricipii (begging the question)

fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support.
Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that
is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that
this valid argument doesn't really provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have
already granted that.
Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:
-

All dogs are mammals.

All mammals have hair.
Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.
But all animals that bear live young are mammals.
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.
-

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying
to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be
judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the arguments conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the
same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the arguments
premises already accepts the arguments conclusion, so cant be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In
neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
it is committed when the arguer uses some device to conceal the fact that a key premise in the argument is
unsupported

Examples
(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:(3) The Bible is inerrant.
This argument is circular because its conclusionThe Bible is inerrantis the same as its second premiseWhatever the Bible says is
true. Anyone who would reject the arguments conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a
whole.
Real-World Examples

The above argument is a straightforward, real-world example of a circular argument. Other examples can be a little more subtle.
Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., I have a right to say what I want, therefore you shouldnt try to
silence me; Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed; The unborn
has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral.
Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the
question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove.
4.

Accident (sweeping generalization)

begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs by applying this principle to
a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.
applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the
specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalisation fallacy. This
fallacy is the reverse of a hasty generalisation, which infers a general rule from a specific case.
-

Example
(1) Children should be seen and not heard.
(2) Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child.
Therefore:(3) Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldnt be heard.
-

No matter what you think of the general principle that children should be seen and not heard, a child prodigy
pianist about to perform is worth listening to; the general principle doesnt apply.

Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
Oprah Winfrey is a woman.
Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.
5. Converse Accident (hasty generalization)
begins with a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way, and then errs by deriving from this case the
truth of a general rule.
draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.
Example
(1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.
(2) Therefore:(2) Christians / atheists are grouches.
-

This argument takes an individual case of a Christian or atheist, and draws a general rule from it, assuming that all
Christians or atheists are like the neighbour.
The conclusion that it reaches hasnt been demonstrated, because it may well be that the neighbour is not a typical
Christian or atheist, and that the conclusion drawn is false.

Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent rebounder.

Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders.
6.

False Dilemma
ommitted when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when
there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less
than there really are are similarly fallacious
Complex questions are subtle forms of false dilemma. Questions such as Are you going to admit that youre
wrong? implicitly restrict the options to either being wrong and admitting it or being wrong or not admitting it, thus
excluding the option of not being wrong.
Examples
Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
(2) The universe didnt come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing).
Therefore: (3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
-

Fallacies of Ambiguity
appear to support their conclusions only due to their imprecise use of language. Once terms are clarified, fallacies of
ambiguity are exposed. It is to avoid fallacies of this type that philosophers often carefully define their terms before
launching into an argument.
occur in an argument using ambiguous words or phrases, whose meaning shifts and changes (to various degrees of
subtlety) during the course of the argument.

1.

involve a confusion of two or more different senses.

Equivocation
committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion.
Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so dont work. This is because the
change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different
things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the
latter.
This fallacy is committed when a key word or phrase is used with two or more different meanings in the same
-

argument. The following arguments are guilty of committing this fallacy:

(I) "Since a criminal is a law breaker, a criminal lawyer too is a law breaker." It can be noticed that the term 'criminal' has been used
in two different senses in the argument. A criminal lawyer is not a criminal.
(ii) The signboard says "fine for parking here". A driver notices the signboard and reasons as follows: "Since it is fine. I will park my
vehicle here." This surely is a misinterpretation. The word 'fine' has been used in two different senses here. In the signboard 'fine'
means penalty. But the driver thinks that it means 'all right'.
-

(iii) "Nature is governed by laws. Laws are the work of law makers. So, laws of nature are the work of some law
maker." In this argument the term 'law' has been used ambiguously. It means descriptive law in the first premise
but used in the sense of prescriptive law in the second. Only prescriptive laws are the work of law makers. Laws of
nature are descriptive laws and not prescriptive.
Real-World Examples
(1) Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation.(2) Faith is irrational, it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.
Therefore:(3) Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.
This argument, which is a reasonably familiar one, switches between two different meanings of faith. The kind of faith that
Christianity holds is necessary for salvation is belief in God, and an appropriate response to that belief. It does not matter where the
belief and the response come from; someone who accepts the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven,
according to Christianity.
For the kind of faith for which (1) is true, (2) is therefore false. Similarly, for the kind of faith for which (2) is true, (1) is false. There is
no one understanding of faith according to which both of the arguments premises are true, and the argument therefore fails to
establish its conclusion.
Another argument relating to Christianity that crops up from time to time goes like this:
(1) Jesus is the Word of God.(2) The Bible is the Word of God.Therefore:(3) Jesus is the Bible.
This is usually used to to support some further conclusion about the authority of the Bible or something similar, but
theres no need to go any further to see that theres a problem here: the phrase Word of God means very
different things in the two premises, so this argument rests on an equivocation.
is the use of expressions of double meaning in order to mislead.
-

trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of an
argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.

Occurs when the conclusion depends on the fact that a word has been used in two different senses. Sometimes the
shift in meaning is subtle.

Examples.

The end justifies the means.

Death is the end of life.
Therefore, ones death justifies the means of life.

God is Love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

Really exciting novels are rare.

But rare books are expensive.
Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive.

2.

Peter is a terrible violinist. But a violinist is a human being. So, Peter is a terrible human being.

Amphiboly
can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a sentence creates
its own ambiguity.
Occurs when a syntactical ambiguity results in a faulty interpretation that is used to support a conclusion. The
ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation.
This is an error due to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways during the reasoning.
The construction of a sentence sometimes allows it to have two different meanings or interpretations. Amphiboly
occurs when an arguer misinterprets a sentence that is syntactically or grammatically ambiguous and goes on to
draw a conclusion on this faulty interpretation. This fallacy can also occur when someone is quoted out of context.
The announcement that there will be a lecture on heart attack in the auditorium may be misinterpreted to mean
that the lecture will be on heart attacks which have occurred in the auditorium. The ambiguity, however, can be
clearly avoided if the phrase "in the auditorium" is placed immediately after "lecture" instead of "heart attack."
-

Examples

A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup truck.
Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.


3.

Cyndi said that she saw a man walking a dog through her window. Clearly that man should be charged with animal abuse.
-

Accent

fallacies that depend on where the stress is placed in a word or sentence. The meaning of a set of words may be
dramatically changed by the way they are spoken, without changing any of the words themselves. Accent fallacies
are a type of equivocation.
occurs when emphasis is used to suggest a meaning different from the actual content of the proposition. For
examples, if a teacher remarks, "Ravi has done the homework today" with undue emphasis on 'today', that might
suggest that Ravi normally comes to school without doing homework.

Example
Suppose that two people are debating whether a rumour about the actions of a third person is true. The first says, I can imagine him
doing that; its possible.
The second replies, Yes, its possible to imagine him doing that. This looks like agreement.
If however, the second person stresses the word imagine, then this appearance vanishes; Yes, its possible to
imagine him doing that. This now sounds like a pointed comment meaning that though it may just about be
possible to imagine him doing that, theres no way that he would actually do it.

Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.

Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.

4.

Composition
-

Applying properties of parts of a whole to the whole itself.

involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a
greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).

Occurs when the conclusion depends on the erroneous transfer of an attribute from the parts of something to the
whole.

This fallacy occurs when an attribute true of the parts of something is erroneously transferred to the whole.
Consider the following argument: Each player in the team plays well. Therefore, the whole team plays well.

Examples.

Since every part of a sewing machine is light in weight, it follows that a sewing machine is light in weight.

A bus uses more gas than a car. Therefore, buses as a whole use more gas than cars.

If every ship is ready for battle, then so is the fleet.

Since every scene of the play is a model of artistic perfection, so is the play itself.

Every course I took in college was well-organized. Therefore, my college education was well-organized.

Each atom in this table is invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, this table is invisible to the naked eye.

5.

Division
-

What is true for the whole is true of its parts.

involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the
same feature by each of its individual members (or parts).

Occurs when the conclusion depends on the erroneous transfer of an attribute from the whole to the parts of
something.

This fallacy occurs in an argument when an attribute true of a whole (or a class) is erroneously transferred to its
parts (or members). Consider the following argument: Men are numerous. Aristotle is a man. Therefore, Aristotle is
numerous.

Examples.

Northern Illinois University is a very important institution. Prof. Blecksmith is on the faculty of NIU.
Therefore, Prof. Blecksmith is very important.

Dogs are common.

Japanese spaniels are dogs.
Therefore, Japanese spaniels are common.

Ocelots are now dying out.

Sparky is an ocelot.
Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.

This thousand dollar bill is very valuable. Therefore, if it is torn up into a hundred pieces, each piece should be valuable.

Definition

1.

statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).[1] [a] Definitions can be classified into
two large categories, intensional definitions (which try to give the essence of a term) and extensional definitions (which
list every single object that a term describes).[2] A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and
thus require multiple definitions
Definens- the phrase that explains the definiendum
Definedum- the word that is defined

Stipulative Definition
type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a specific meaning for the purposes of
argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not
necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term.
declaration of a meaning that is intended to be attached by the speaker to a word, expression, or symbol and that
usually does not already have an established use in the sense intended
A stipulative definition is a kind of definition in which a new word or term is coined in order to signify a meaning or
object for which no word in the language has previously been given.
For example, the word selfie has been invented in order to signify a person who loves to take picture of himself or
herself.
Suppose that another living creature was found in another planet. Surely, there is no word in our language to signify
such creature. We, then, have to stipulate that the creature shall be known by this or that particular name. Doing
this means making a stipulative definition.
-

Ex
Suppose we say that to love someone is to be willing to die for that person.
Take "human" to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens.
For the purposes of argument, we will define a "student" to be "a person under 18 enrolled in a local school."
2.

Lexical (Real Definition)

also known as the dictionary definition, is the meaning of the term in common usage. As its other name implies,
this is the sort of definition one is likely to find in the dictionary. A lexical definition is usually the type expected
from a request for definition, and it is generally expected that such a definition will be stated as simply as possible
in order to convey information to the widest audience.
descriptive, reporting actual usage within speakers of a language, and changes with changing usage of the term,
rather than prescriptive, which would be to stick with a version regarded as "correct", regardless of drift in accepted
meaning. They tend to be inclusive, attempting to capture everything the term is used to refer to, and as such are
often too vague for many purposes.
the definition of a word according to the meaning customarily assigned to it by the community of users. It simply
reports the meaning which a word already has among the users of the language in which the word occurs. A
dictionary or lexicon comprises this kind of definition.
E.g.: Lexicon - dictionary: a reference book that alphabetically lists words and their meanings, e.g. of an ancient language
River large natural channel of water: a natural stream of water that flows through land and
empties into a body of water such as an ocean or lake
-

3.

Precising Definition
a definition that extends the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that
narrow down the set of things meeting the definition.
generally used in contexts where vagueness is unacceptable; many legal definitions are precising definitions, as are
company policies. This type of definition is useful in preventing disputes that arise from the involved parties using
different definitions of the term in question.
intended to make a vague word more precise so that the word's meaning is not left to the interpretation of the
reader or listener.
attempt to clear an expressions vagueness, which means that it isnt clearly or explicitly stated. Words such as rich
and poor are conisdered vague because they dont really express a clear and definite meaning. However when put
into the right context for example, if we say that the definition of "poor" is anybody making less than 4,000 dollars
a year and is worth less than 20,000 dollars, then anybody could pinpoint what we mean by being poor in that
context. Another example of precising definitions is by taking the lexical definition of a word, but using it towards a
different discipline such as logic. An example would be the word formal, which in lexical terms could mean being
dressed nicely or meeting the usual requirements. However in logic, formal means reasoning from known premises
or premises prevoiusly assumed to be true, to the conclusion. Precising definitions differ from stipulative definitions
-

because stipulative definitions are based solely on individual will or discretion. While precising definitions are
subject to a great deal of rationality because it must ensure that the definition is correct for the context it is being
used in.
The purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the vagueness of a word. There are terms in our language which
must have precise definitions because some future actions are based on our knowledge of them.
For example, the arguments for or against contraception requires a clear, precise, and unambiguous definition of
life of human organism because such definition implies the moral bearing of contraception.
Other examples which need precising definitions are legal terms like theft, murder, private property, rights,
and sovereignty since the definition sets the condition of understanding laws and legislative praxis.

Ex
"Class participation" means attending class, listening attentively, answering and asking questions, and participating in class
discussions.
4.

5.

Theoretical Definition
an abstract concept that defines a term in an academic discipline. Without a falsifiable operational definition,
conceptual definitions assume both knowledge and acceptance of the theories that it depends on
a proposed way of thinking about potentially related events [1][2] Indeed, theoretical definitions contain built-in
theories; they cannot be simply reduced to describing a set of observations. The definition may contain implicit
inductions and deductive consequences that are part of the theory.[3] A theoretical definition of a term can change,
overtime, based on the methods in the field that created it.
Theoretical definitions attempt to define an object according to its true nature, and not necessarily according to the
way the word is used by a community of users.
Take, for instance, the definition of table salt as sodium chloride. Unless the persons involved have some
acquaintance with elementary chemistry, this would be a bad definition, for it would define the familiar in terms of
the unfamiliar. For those acquainted with the principles of chemistry, however, this definition is the best one, for it
reveals the real nature of salt. Other familiar theoretical definitions are force equals mass times acceleration, or
light is electromagnetic energy (of a certain range of wavelengths). For scientific purposes, theoretical definitions
are necessary and cannot be replaced by other types of definitions. A theoretical definition answers the question,
What really is x? where x is the object whose name is to be defined.
Philosophers, too, are interested in theoretical definitions. The desire to know what is really the nature of human
person, knowledge, existence, being, beauty etc., tells us why philosophy today have so many branches
like Philosophy of the Human Person, Epistemology, Existentialism, Metaphysics, and Aesthetics which endeavour
to get correct theoretical definitions of the objects just mentioned.
-

Persuasive Definition
form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality
stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights,
duties or crimes.[1][2] The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as
"freedom", "terrorism", "democracy", etc. In argumentation the use of a stipulative definition is sometimes called
definist fallacy
focus on the expressive use of language to affect the feelings of readers and listeners ultimately with an aim to
change their behavior
Some definitions are intended either mainly or at least partly to influence attitudes. Persuasive definition, under
which these definitions are categorized, incites either favourable or unfavourable responses to the object so
defined. Here are examples of persuasive definitions:
Democracy is a government of the weak, inferior race.
Democracy is a government of the people by the people for the people.
A dictator is one who achieves greatness by violence in the political sphere.
Love is only an illusion on people who do not know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Contraception is the deliberate prevention of unwanted pregnancy so that families may be able to give the best
care to their children.
Contraception is the willful interference of Gods will so that children who would have seen the light of day are
deliberately prevented from doing so.
Persuasive is not really concerned with revealing the true nature of the concept defined but of influencing attitude
by using phrases that appeal to ones emotion.
-

Ex
atheist "someone who doesn't yet realize that God exists"[4]
Democrat "a leftist who desires to overtax the corporations and abolish freedom in the economic sphere"[4]
Republican "an old white man who feels threatened by change."
Loyalty "a tool to get people to do things they don't want to do."
A.

Extensional
also called a denotative definition, of a concept or term specifies its extension. It is a list naming every object that is a
member of a specific set
a concept or term formulates its meaning by specifying its extension, that is, every object that falls under the definition
of the concept or term in question.
For example, an extensional definition of the term "nation of the world" might be given by listing all of the nations of the
world, or by giving some other means of recognizing the members of the corresponding class. An explicit listing of the
extension, which is only possible for finite sets and only practical for relatively small sets, is a type of enumerative
definition.
Extensional definitions are used when listing examples would give more applicable information than other types of
definition, and where listing the members of a set tells the questioner enough about the nature of that set.
Denotative Definition, it is a way of defining a word based on giving examples of the things or objects referred to by a
term. For example, defining a computer for someone who never saw a computer before would be utterly lacking. It is

important, therefore, to show him or her a computer. Showing a computer to describe a term computer is an
extensional definition.
1.

Definition by example
Sometimes a word can be defined by offering examples that are representative, or serve as a pattern, model, or
prototype of the thing to be defined
definition in which we list or give examples of the objects denoted by the term
2. Ostensive
conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. This type of definition is often used where the term is
difficult to define verbally, either because the words will not be understood (as with children and new speakers of a
language) or because of the nature of the term (such as colors or sensations). It is usually accompanied with a
gesture pointing out the object serving as an example, and for this reason is also often referred to as "definition by
pointing". Ostensive definitions rely on an analogical or case-based reasoning by the subject they are intended to
educate or inform.
For example, defining red by pointing out red objectsapples, stop signs, rosesis giving ostensive definition, as is
naming.
Ostensive definition assumes the questioner has sufficient understanding to recognize the type of information being
given. Ludwig Wittgenstein writes: So one might say: the ostensive definition explains the usethe meaningof
the word when the overall role of the word in language is clear. Thus if I know that someone means to explain a
colour-word to me the ostensive definition "That is called 'sepia' " will help me to understand the word.... One has
already to know (or be able to do) something in order to be capable of asking a thing's name. But what does one
have to know?
an extensional definition which merely points out an object referred by a term.
3. Quasi- ostensive
attempt to resolve this ambiguity by adding a descriptive phrase to the definiens.
an extensional definition which does not only point the object referred to by the term but also gives a description
about the object being pointed out
-

4.
5.
6.

Subjective Intension
Objective Intension
Conventional Intension

B.

Intensional
Also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing being a member of a
specific set.[2] Any definition that attempts to set out the essence of something, such as that by genus and differentia,
is an intensional definition.
gives the meaning of a term by specifying all the properties required to come to that definition, that is, the necessary
and sufficient conditions for belonging to the set being defined.
For example, an intensional definition of bachelor is "unmarried man". Being an unmarried man is an essential property
of something referred to as a bachelor. It is a necessary condition: one cannot be a bachelor without being an unmarried
man. It is also a sufficient condition: any unmarried man is a bachelor
also known as connotative definition or definition by comprehension, it is a way of defining a word by giving its
meaning. Giving the meaning of the term may be done through giving its etymological origin or its synonym, or stating
the essential attributes of the concept signified by the term.

1.

Synonymous
- Defines a word by giving a synonym (either of the same language as the word to be defined or of a different language) that
is better known than the word to be defined. E.g. anthropos means man, to confect means to put together
2. Operational
A type of intensional definition widely used in science. It defines a word or an occurrence by stating the necessary
conditions that are required in order for something to be called such a term. It has a form Something is X, if and
only if
For instance, X is magnetic, if and only if, whenever any piece of iron, nickel or cobalt is placed closed to it, it
attracts the latter toward itself.
Another example: X is harder than Y, if and only if, when a point of X is drawn on the surface of Y, X scratches Y.
3. Definition by genus and difference
type of intensional definition, and it is composed of two parts: a genus (or family): An existing definition that
serves as a portion of the new definition; all definitions with the same genus are considered members of that
genus. the differentia: The portion of the definition that is not provided by the genus.
regarded as the best type of definition because it tells us what a thing really is. It is defining a term by giving a
larger class to which the concept signified by the term belongs (called as genus) and stating the properties that a
concept has that differentiates it from other concepts under the same genus (called as difference).
For example:
Man is a rational animal. (Animal is the genus because it is the larger class to which the concept man belongs. Rational is the
difference because it is what differs man from all other animals.)
Girl is a young woman. (Genus = woman; Difference = young)
Triangle is a plane figure bounded by three straight lines. (Genus = plane figure; Difference = bounded by three
straight lines)
For example, consider these two definitions:

a triangle: A plane figure that has 3 straight bounding sides.

a quadrilateral: A plane figure that has 4 straight bounding sides.
Those definitions can be expressed as one genus and two differentiae:

1.

one genus:

2.

the genus for both a triangle and a quadrilateral: "A plane figure"
two differentiae:
the differentia for a triangle: "that has 3 straight bounding sides."
the differentia for a quadrilateral: "that has 4 straight bounding sides."