The analysis is interesting, but ultimately a lawsuit isn't grounded totally in logic and won't succeed if it attempts to create arguments grounded totally in logic. Maintaining support and sponsorship for the political and policy platforms it seeks partially to vindicate by bringing the lawsuit is, of course, one of the FTC's objectives. So it will definitely invoke illogic. I'm only surprised more fallacies weren't triggered.
Legally, what will matter is (a) whether FTC can prove each element of the case it is arguing using factual evidence, and (b) whether there are valid counter-arguments which nullify or mitigate one of more of those elements. It needn't be logical in doing so. In fact, I might argue that litigation has both its own grammar and its own (perverse) logic. (H/T Clausewitz).
Pretending the absence of perfect logic impairs an argument is itself a logical fallacy, it seems to me. Maybe we need to codify and label it as "Appeal to Impossibly Perfect Logic in Human Activity."
The analysis is interesting, but ultimately a lawsuit isn't grounded totally in logic and won't succeed if it attempts to create arguments grounded totally in logic. Maintaining support and sponsorship for the political and policy platforms it seeks partially to vindicate by bringing the lawsuit is, of course, one of the FTC's objectives. So it will definitely invoke illogic. I'm only surprised more fallacies weren't triggered.
Legally, what will matter is (a) whether FTC can prove each element of the case it is arguing using factual evidence, and (b) whether there are valid counter-arguments which nullify or mitigate one of more of those elements. It needn't be logical in doing so. In fact, I might argue that litigation has both its own grammar and its own (perverse) logic. (H/T Clausewitz).
Pretending the absence of perfect logic impairs an argument is itself a logical fallacy, it seems to me. Maybe we need to codify and label it as "Appeal to Impossibly Perfect Logic in Human Activity."