Interpretational impasse resolution
When an agreement is made based on different views of the same statement, because said statement can be interpreted both ways. This statement often contains sophistry or rhetoric, and is entirely objective.
This usually doesn’t actually solve the problem of having different beliefs, but it does solve the problem of fighting about it unnecessarily.
A: “Religion is important for morals”
B: “Religion is not needed for morals”
C: “Religion supplies morals to those with a need for guidance”
A agrees because: “Everyone needs moral guidance”
B agrees because: “People who rely on religion for moral guidance need it”
Writing logically basically involves writing in a manner in which there is no other way of perceiving the written thing.
“There is no way to go faster than the speed of light.”
In this sentence there is more than one possible meaning. The person could be talking entirely in the literal sense that it is simply impossible in the universe no matter the means, to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light, or they might instead mean that there is currently no means by which a person might travel faster than light, but that it may be that it is still unknown whether or not this is possible.
Writing logically as a concept eliminates this possibility for secondary or multiple meanings. Writing logically the statement might be something like the following:
“Travelling faster than the speed of light is currently not plausible with humanity’s present technology.”