Reply #10: It partially covers each of those questions.

[Igel]

And that's the problem.

Take one example.

If you fall into one class of resident, a passport by itself won't necessarily be sufficient to establish citizenship. Of course, the vast majority of citizens aren't in that class so that a passport does a perfectly fine job of establishing citizenship. But we understand the article to say that a passport by itself is insufficient for everybody.

What he says is true. What we understand is false. The difference is in conversational maxims, the rules of how the communication "game" is played. Laywers are famous for manipulating their listeners by being fully aware of the assumptions that the listeners will make and giving them just enough evidence to cause them to make those assumptions, knowing that the assumptions are false and the conclusions will be false. They also know that if the conclusions are what people want to believe, if disputing is onerous or requires knowledge that the listener won't be aware of not having or not want to admit not having, it doesn't matter, the assumptions will be assumed to be true--after all, would a lawyer, pundit, or politician lie? In these situations, "critical thinking" has as many practicioners as enemas sold in subway stations for use on the trains during morning rush hour would have users.