Illicit Contrast    This fallacy consists in a listener's directly inferring from a speaker's claim some related but unstated contrasting claim by placing improper or unusual emphasis on the words or phrases in the statement.

Example: In this fallacy the listener has taken the speaker's claim that "X is true of Y" and extended it to also mean that "X is not true of the contrast of Y." For example, if the speaker claims that logic teachers are very smart, the listener would be inappropriately extending the meaning of that claim if he or she infers that the speaker is also saying that professors in other fields are not smart. In this case it is the listener who has employed an unacceptable premise, and an argument with such a premise is a flawed one.

Attacking the Fallacy    Because your opponent is falsely claiming that you have accented some particular part of a claim that led him or her to the questionable contrasting claim, you should insist that the burden of proof is on your accuser to demonstrate that the context or your voice inflection encouraged such an interpretation. You, of course, have a peculiar advantage, because you can almost always point out that the contrasting claim was not specifically uttered. But your opponent has already acknowledged that you did not actually utter the claim in question; the issue is whether you implicitly made the claim and whether you are prepared to defend it.

    No person should be required to accept responsibility for any claim not made. If you think you have been mistakenly heard making a claim that you have not made, you might express your willingness to examine the unstated contrasting claim in question, while making it quite clear that your original statement had in no way implied that claim. Unless you wish to reserve judgment about the merit of the issue, you could even deny the questionable claim outright-in addition to denying that you implicitly made the claim. Denying that you made the claim and denying the claim itself are two different issues, and that point should be made clear to your accuser.

["Attacking Faulty Reasoning", By T. Edward Damer]