How does the fallacy of secundum quid ignore important qualifications to a general statement?

The fallacy of secundum quid—formally known as a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid—occurs when an argument applies a general rule to a specific case while ignoring the tacit restrictions, provisos, or qualifications that make the rule valid.1

By treating a statement that is only true under certain conditions as if it were an absolute, universal truth, the arguer commits a logical error. Essentially, the fallacy ignores the context or "special provisos" that govern the original proposition, leading to an invalid application of that rule to a situation where it does not actually apply.12

A classic example is the fallacy of accident, which is a specific form of secundum quid. For instance, while it may be generally true that "men are capable of seeing," applying this rule without qualification to a blind man leads to the false conclusion that he is also capable of seeing. In this case, the general statement fails to account for the necessary physical qualification of sight.1