Then it's bad, misleading, imprecise writing to say invariably. A single counterexample does disprove it, by the definition of the word. If the writer didn't want the argument blown up like that, he should have looked among the other hundreds of thousands of words in English to find one that actually does say what he meant.
It is not a technical proof that lends itself to be proven or disproven.
it is a piece of prose that took some license with it's language. Also, the total number of words in the English language != the amount of synonyms for invariably.
By your own standard you are just as incorrect as the author the article. You have posted a bad, misleading or imprecise sentence to suggest the author has hundreds of thousands of words to choose from. He does not.
Comments
Then it's bad, misleading, imprecise writing to say invariably. A single counterexample does disprove it, by the definition of the word. If the writer didn't want the argument blown up like that, he should have looked among the other hundreds of thousands of words in English to find one that actually does say what he meant.
It is not a technical proof that lends itself to be proven or disproven.
it is a piece of prose that took some license with it's language. Also, the total number of words in the English language != the amount of synonyms for invariably.
By your own standard you are just as incorrect as the author the article. You have posted a bad, misleading or imprecise sentence to suggest the author has hundreds of thousands of words to choose from. He does not.