On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:00:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially the
same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high
octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.

Is that intuition correct?

Pretty much Gas would burn faster but we all know jets are faster than
gas powered piston planes so therefore. . . draw an incorrect conclusion.

Your example is PERFECT!

What you just displayed was a sophism (aka, a false argument, often by way
of example).

Sophisms abound when people on this ng try to "explain" away the fact there
are no accidents.

Most people here can't "parse" a scientific statistic properly, so they fall
prey to the sophists who are (apparently) trying to "intensify" the scare
effect.

With respect to the three high-octane quotes, for a reader to correctly
ascertain both the true and intended meaning of the 3 examples, I wonder if
the process they must employ is that they must:

a. Parse the sentence so as to actively focus on the "high octane" modifier;
b. Consciously realize that the modifier was artificially inserted;
c. Ascertain the reason was to falsely "intensify" the danger;
d. Recognize that this false intensification of danger is a "sophism";
e. Resulting in the reader not being overly alarmed (wrt normal gasoline).

Does that five-step process hold water with the group as the basic process
that must be followed in order for the reader to "properly" understand the
given 3 examples?