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.

  1. If A, then (B,C,D,E,F...) by previous definition.
  2. It is proposed, but not proven, that A is true.
  3. 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.

  1. If (B, C, D, ...) are all true, then A.
  2. B is true.
  3. Therefore A.

This may be a form of affirming the consequent.

Example 1

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.

Example 2

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.

Example 3

Wikileaks's phrase "Collateral Murder" where the required implications of each word contradict the truthfulness of the other word.

Page generated Jun. 27th, 2017 03:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios