There is a meta aspect to this question. Let's say Stack Exchange A allows questions about A and its uses. The question may take the form of: is it legal to use A to do x?
The answers can be:
- The laws about A say nothing about x, but the laws about B do.
Now ideally (in my opinion) the third answer should be a comment, and the user can then go and ask their question on Stack Exchange B. But Stack Exchange A deemed the question that received the third answer on-topic.
The way I see it, if that type of question can't be answered with yes/no, then x is unrelated to A (off-topic), but I can't prove whether this is a logical argument.
After some searching, I think (not sure) that there is a fallacy of division:
- The 2nd grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream
- Carlos is a 2nd grader in Jefferson elementary
- Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream
Compared to the example posed here (from the perspective of the review queue):
- The site discusses a lot of uses for A
- The question asks is it legal to use A to do x
- Therefore, asking about x will always be on-topic for the site
If this is correct, it only proves x is not always related to A just because A is used to do x, but it does not address if there is a logical argument (e.g., based on an answer given) that would prove/disprove a relation – that question remains open either way.
Note: I provided the SE example to explain what made me think about such a logic-related question. I thought omitting the details are encouraged here (being impartial). I'm not sure why it was migrated. (But it's fine – this is just a note to explain that I was/am not seeking an SE related dispute resolution.)