IRS reportedly planning to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status

This passage attempts to present a more journalistic account of the dispute, but it still subtly embeds fallacies through biased language (“probably illegal move,” “concerted attack”) and speculative assertions. The phrase “Trump’s assault on institutions” appeals to emotion, painting a villainous narrative rather than offering legal analysis. Suggesting the IRS’s move is retaliation (false cause) without detailing statutory violations is speculative. Statements that Harvard hasn’t broken any laws are made without reference to completed investigations, creating a red herring that obscures procedural realities. The invocation of experts and university officials to declare the IRS’s potential actions unlawful invokes appeal to authority without detailing legal rationale.