There is a form of rhetoric wherein a speaker uses a word that implies several subsequent facts are true, when these subsequent facts are not true for the situation where the word is used.
- If A, then (B,C,D,E,F...) by previous definition.
- It is proposed, but not proven, that A is true.
- Therefore (B,C,D...) are true.
The logic is sound but the data is crap. This form is not a logical fallacy but a type of lie by implication.
The logical fallacy is in deriving the word from an incomplete set.
- If (B, C, D, ...) are all true, then A.
- B is true.
- Therefore A.
This may be a form of affirming the consequent.
A Contract requires the set of (Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Mental Capacity, Lawful Purpose)
An agreement in dispute contains only (Offer, Acceptance). Maybe the accepter had a gun to his head.
One of the parties says "We have a Contract!" Not true.
Countless reports from 2000-2004 of Israel killing "civilians" who were firing AK47s at Israeli soldiers, with that word used because these "civilians" were not openly enlisted in the official army of a state recognized by the US State Department.
Wikileaks's phrase "Collateral Murder" where the required implications of each word contradict the truthfulness of the other word.