A while back a friend of mine was advancing the controversial thesis that Darwinian social dynamics necessitated religiosity (or something like that).
His essay was structured in such a way that there were several fallacious inferences kind of… implied, but not actually stated anywhere.
I think we need a term for this kind of thing, and I have a proposal:
Kanisza figures are those ghostly shapes which the brain can’t help but see because of how some other shapes are arranged:
Knowing about Kanisza inferences might help in crafting more lucid arguments and avoiding pointless tangents (though of course nothing can prevent the deliberately dishonest from misinterpreting your ideas.)