Why does the claim that blind people can see illustrate the fallacy of accident?

The claim that blind people can see illustrates the fallacy of accident because it improperly applies a general rule to a specific case where that rule is inapplicable due to special circumstances.1

In logic, this fallacy occurs when a general proposition—such as the truth that "men are capable of seeing"—is used as a premise without considering the tacit restrictions or qualifications that govern it. By ignoring the specific condition of blindness, the argument fails to account for the reality that the general rule does not hold in this particular instance. This is a form of the fallacy secundum quid, where a statement is taken too simply, disregarding the necessary provisos that define its true scope.1