Answer
The provided statement is of fallacy of ambiguity which is option (e) in given example.
Work Step by Step
Use letters to represent both simple statement in the argument.
p: You hurt me by telling Dad.
q: I hurt your arm.
Express the premises and the conclusion symbolically.
\[p\to q\] If you hurt me by telling Dad, then I will hurt your arm.
\[\frac{\tilde{\ }q}{\therefore \tilde{\ }p}\]\[\frac{\text{I will not hurt your arm}}{\text{If you will not hurt me by telling my Dad, then I will not hurt you}\text{.}}\]
Write a symbolic statement of the form.
\[\left[ \left( \text{premise 1} \right)\wedge \left( \text{premise 2} \right) \right]\to \text{conclusion}\]
The symbolic statement is:
\[\left[ \left( p\to q \right)\wedge \tilde{\ }q \right]\to \,\tilde{\ }p\]
It is an invalid argument that is it is the fallacy and it agrees on more than one argument.
Thus, the provided statement is of fallacy of ambiguity, which is option (e) in given example.
