Twenty-One: Rhetoric, Rules, and Reasoning
The chapter introduction proclaims the obvious: that leaders use rhetorical tricks to hide the truth and even to get people to believe the opposite of what is true. There are various examples from politicians and business leaders, in which the argument is deconstructed to show the logical flaws.
He then provides a basic definition of a logical fallacy - it is a flaw that creates the false appearance of truth. An argument is constructed in a way that bends or breaks the basic rules of logic, but in a way that makes it seem they are following those rules. And often, this is done intentionally.
There is also a short list of common fallacies for illustrative purposes. (EN: Better and more comprehensive information about logical fallacies is available from other sources.)
He then turns to the example of food labels, where terms such as fresh, natural, organic, healthy, and light are essentially meaningless. They begin as marketing buzzwords that have appeal because they imply but do not guarantee certain qualities. When a given term becomes common, regulators often get involved and hammer out a definition. And then the food companies simply switch to another term. When the FDA provided very specific guidelines that were required to call a food product "natural," the advertisers simply switched to "organic" and carried on without changing the products.
This happens outside of the food industry as well: a vehicle or a children's toy may be described as "safe" - but there is no common or enforced definition of what that word means. It makes people feel that they are protected from harm, but neither the customer nor the advertiser can (or will) provide a granular description of how the product is safe and what the user is and is not protected from.
Here, he lurches a bit into comparative advertising - the way in which companies point to the flaws and shortcomings in other products without mentioning their own, implying that their product is good in ways that the competitions' products are bad - but this is not necessarily true. Very often, comparative advertising is entirely hypocritical.
Then, he mentions that certain terms fall out of fashion - the public discovers their true meaning and a word that once was taken in a positive manner becomes negative. Politicians once used the term "collateral damage" to describe civilians and bystanders that were carelessly killed in military and police actions. But the public has gotten wise to this, and no longer dismisses this phrase.
In the end, rhetorical sophistry and wordplay is only a temporary distraction and the truth will be discovered - but if history is any indication, people can be deceived for quite a long time and, once primed, will defend their perceptions until the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
(EN: It stands to note that these are successful tactics for the short term, but damaging to the long term reputation of a brand. And here, the problem of executive tenure becomes clear: an executive who plans to be around for a few years and then move to another company has an interest only in the short term, and does not concern himself with the long-term damage he does to a firm.)