[fargle]

it does say something useful. it points out that iodine can't be synthesized in our bodies.

the fact it doesn't add more, possibly irrelevant, information does not diminish its usefulness.

it does not imply anything about things that aren't being discussed. it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning.

as technical people we probably enjoy delving into tangents and pedantry far too much. but, for example, adding a statement "... In fact, iodine is an element and cannot be synthesized ... " would be a tangent and should be avoided or edited out.

[kazinator]

> it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning.

It is absolutely normal to read every condition given in some technical subject matter as being relevant, and decent writing satisfies this.

It takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every stated condition might be irrelevant to the proposition to which it is attached.

[fargle]

that doesn't mean, as the GP comment said and i'm objecting to, that it implies anything about when the condition is false.

this is a magazine article, not a proof. so i'm certain the author felt it was relevant to say it that way because the whole article is about what happens in the body, whether or not it was logically relevant to the condition.

the fact that he made a narrower than necessary true statement does not imply he meant anything beyond that either, even if you read it pedantically. it takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every unstated condition might be relevant too.

[kazinator]

Using what definition of "implies"? From formal logic, or the rhetorical implies?

[fargle]

both. either.