Technically true, but overall false?

I sent this as an e-mail, but I figured I would post it on the forum as well:

What is it called when a person has a technically sound argument, but doesn’t actually stand up to the overall big picture? Or, when a person continues to cite specifics to validate their argument, but fails to see the overall big picture?

For example:

Say person A has the argument that the USA did nothing to help China during World War II. And person B argues that the USA did help China during World War II. Person A argues that the USA did not send any troops to China, therefore they did not help China. Person B responds that yes, while technically true, the defeat of Japan had an indirect effect of stopping Japan's invasion of China.

Person A has a technically true argument. However, it misses the overall picture. Person A has a technically sound argument, but it is an isolated one and misses the bigger picture. Or all the details, if you will.

The second idea is that a person redundantly cites specifics to validate an untrue claim.

For example: Person A claims that zombies are beneficial to humans. Person B refutes that claim. Person A says that zombies give a person character and a challenge to overcome. Person B claims that character is irrelevant, because they have no personality. Person A then claims that zombies move more slowly and have a chill lifestyle. Person B claims that’s only because they are too physically degraded to move properly. Person A claims that zombies can go longer periods of time without food (assuming they could). Person B states that you are correct, however, what’s the point if you don’t have a brain? And on and on the argument goes into infinity.

Person A keeps citing example after example after example of the benefits of being a zombie; while person B keeps refuting those claims. One after the other.

So! my question is: is there a technical name for any of those forms of argument? Either the isolation argument or the perpetual referencing argument? For example, Ad Hominem, Straw Man, Reductio ad Absurbum all reference specific types of argument. Is there a name for any of those? Particularly the argument that is technically sound, but misses the overall big picture.

Any input is greatly appreciated!

Matt

In the first example, the person making the argument that if USA indeed did not help China by not sending troops during the war the argument may be a good (inductive/ampliative) argument. We have a good reason to think that USA did not help China during the WW II, but the conclusion is merely probable, not certain. It is not technically a sound argument (In logic soundness means an argument in which the premises are true [plausibility and/or truth condition] and is deductive [If the premises are true the conclusion can't be false-logic condition]). So, the argument is intended as an inductive argument.

But how the person's A argument misses the overall picture? Person B merely claims (after the fact ) that USA did help China because the defeat of Japan was reflected in the non-invasion of China by Japan. This argument is very problematic! This could qualify as the post hoc fallacy . Let's put the argument in the standard form:

P1: Since the defeat of Japan by USA put and an end to their plans of invasion
P2: Japan did not invade China after being defeated in the war
C: Therefore, USA did help China after the war.

The fallacy is more obvious now. Person A is attempting to establish a causal relationship between Japan being defeated and that USA did help China (Because probably Japan did not have the resources to begin an "invasion"). But it does not follow that this is the case. First, the causal relationship between the two events is not established by merely observing , post-factum the consequences of one event. In a possible world, maybe Japan never intended to invade China. But for a causal relationship to hold we need a control situation which when it comes to history is impossible. The question is: Even if Japan won the war does that mean that they would invade China? Because the causal link between the event is only hypothetical the logic is weak and the conclusion does not follow.

In the example with Zombies...When person A says: "zombies give a person character and a challenge to overcome" to what they refer to? They refer to fact that fighting zombies "gives a person character" or that becoming a zombie "gives a person character"? Because we have this ambiguity, we can't really know what person B is refuting by "at character is irrelevant, because they have no personality". The argument is therefore not refuted and person B advances and other point and so on. This is sequence of statements is really hard to evaluate properly because many links are missing (implicit premises that are controversial and not very obvious ), ambiguity, vagueness/lack of definitions (i.e., What is a zombie?) loaded language ("zombies are beneficial"), inadequate refutation etc. The only hope for properly assessing the sequence is by carefully addressing every standpoint and by putting the argument/s in the standard form.

Thanks for the response. I think I like how the definist fallacy fits the first example. It seems like the person is trying to define, in narrow terms, what "help" is and is not willing to accept anything outside of that narrow definition. That seems like a good fit.

As for the second example, fair enough. Moving the goal post makes sense.

Thanks for jogging my memory on two of the three and for teaching me one new one. Appreciate it.

And thanks Sava Sergiu for your detailed response as well.

I'm also thinking of "cherry picking" where they are taking the parts they want and discarding the rest. Als the argument is incorrect because the U.S. did supply military support to China, the Flying Tigers were a set of U.S. pilots and planes the US loaned China through a third party to give us denyability.

There are three types of rhetorical tricks that come to mind but i am not sure that they are formal fallacies so much as just attempts to deceive.

1) Cherry Picking. This is where you look for evidence that specifically supports your claim, while ignoring a much larger body of evidence that refutes it. Usually there person tries to counter a general claim about a trend, with specific counter examples or catagories of counter examples that are not comprehensive enough to address teh claim. This is very common in people disputing health claims. Such as vaccines help reduce communicable diseases, countered with, we have a list of over 100 children that got sick after they had the vaccine. Smoking shortens peopels lives,. My uncle Ed lived to be 90 and he smoked every day.

2) Taking things out of context. This happens most often with quotations related to political or ideological issues, but can happen with other forms of evidence. Example, after institutinga zero tolerence policing policy, new york city saw a 25% drop in crime. Sound convincing, but teh nation as a whole experienced a similar drop in crime. Recently i have seen quotes from Margaret Sanger the founderof planned parenthood, that are essentially accurate that go something like "We need to hire black preachers and doctors to convince black people that we are not tryoing to exterminate them". With the implication that planned parenthood was developed to exterminate black people. if you read her full letter in contect it says something to the effect of. Ugly and false rumors are spbeing spread amongst the black community. People are telling them that we are trying to hurt thjem instead of give them teh chance to plan for a family they can afford so that they can raise their children out of poverty. We need to hire...

3) i think there may also be a type of equivocation fallacy or tautology, where an "overly narrow" definition is used to imply something broader. Something like All black businessmen are sucessful. How do you define busines men? A man who has made over 10 million dollars in business. Since they have made over 10 millionm dollars in business they must be sucessful by definition. Nevertheless, teh argument is specious because most people would not think of that definiotion of busnessman when they here "all black business men are sucessful". they are much more likely to thinkof any black man that tries to make money oin business.