>>11650226>Further, take the sequence {1,2,3,4,x}. What should x be? Only someone who is clueless about induction would answer 5 as if it were the only answerbut the reader, familiar with this species of rhetorical question, realizes that they're expected to pick 5 to play along with the dialectic, and having resolved all ambiguity in this sentence, moves on to read the next sentence wherein the author proceeds to betray their own implicature by committing a
VILE
ACT
of
SEMANTIC
FUCKERY
by pretending that they just posed a different question, IN THE SAME SENTENCE THAT ESTABLISHES 5 AS THE ONLY "ANSWER"
because he's asking the reader to demonstrate understanding - just like they do in an IQ TEST - and not to solve a real problem.
he then insults the reader by calling them "obedient" for participating in society.
