Imagine some arguments that start from faulty assumptions such as if pigs could fly or if money grew on trees. what would be some of the logical consequences?

The logical consequence would be the establishment of a very subjective dialogue, which could even be unsatisfactory.

We can arrive at this answer because:

In this case, although the colloquial language is efficient in some cases, it can trigger weak and lacking objectivity dialogues.

More information:

link

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Some of the logical consequences when an individual uses faulty assumptions such as "if pigs could fly" or "if money grew on trees" to wage arguments, is that those assumptions are not base on reality and are kind of metaphors or language figures to state a point in the conversation.

So, the discussion could derive in something that is not productive for the parts involved and a real solution could be delayed. Instead, using facts, data, and logical reasons can greatly improve any dialogue an invites the parts to reach a conclusion or agreement that satisfies both parts.

better now, by post malone

do you have a picture of the cartoon?