I don’t like how this argument is presented, I can’t remember the correct name for an argument articulated like this but I’ll try to explain why it’s misleading

I don’t like how this argument is presented, I can’t remember the correct name for an argument articulated like this but I’ll try to explain why it’s misleading as I keep seeing it lately: > Clearly the way to close the wage gap is to get women to stop having kids. That’s one way, the basis of the rest of this comment is then predicated on this being the only way, and as such only has to deal with this. > I personally don't care if there is a wage gap as long as it is not being caused by workplace discrimination against women. This a statement that almost every reader agrees with and allows a reader to justify the position that follows (I.e. great, can’t argue with that) > If instead it's the case that the wage gap is caused by women (disproportionately to men) making an informed choice to de-prioritize work in order to prioritize childcare, then I am totally alright with that. There is the massive assumption here, “the wage gap is caused by women” without any evidence to back it up. But the author has already trained the reader in the previous statement that they are saying something they agree with, and that the only problem we are solving is to stop women having children (the first statement). The comment ends with a slight retraction, “maybe, ...” but does not deny the core of the argument. This allows the author to looks like they have presented a balanced view, but it’s anything but.