So are ad hominems a sign of the strongly logical?
I'm assuming from the tone of your post that your argument is because of my "weak logic" I am incapable of understanding logic. It seems more like a personal attack than a logical claim.
I didn't form my post as an "argument", it was intended more as guidance. I'm also sorry for being condescending.
Truly logical cases take long to construct. The applicability to real world might be weak. The reason lies in the difference of the object's essence and it's definition. This difference - or error, if you will - can be avoided in strictly abstractly constructed systems, like in prepositional logic and set theory, but it's essentially unavoidable in non-constructed systems whose details we are not completely aware of, like humans. The same applies to constructed concrete objects, to some extent.
The error also comes in simplified statements, like that "cars are powered by engines and steered with a steering wheel". As it is, the statement doesn't seem TOO bad. But juggle it a bit, analyze, tear it apart, connect it with others - and you end up with absurdities. The error between the stated and the reality becomes more pronounced the more phases you add to the logical construction.
A statement pertaining to real world is most likely anthropocentric, colored and tinted according to our culture. It's a great error to take such statements as premises to some logical system we expect to be faultless. Sure, the logic can be applied, but the errors are inevitable. We can do all the logical work perfectly, but the logic won't do much good for us there. It's completely acceptable to logical rules for cars to fly and cows to speak, unless otherwise defined. Sadly, there's so much to be defined as to make strict logic virtually unusable in the real world. It does a great deal of good in computer science, though.
So, the inerrant nature of the logic is lost when the premises differ from the objects it describes, and the errors in such scenarios become more pronounced the more we handle the data. This doesn't happen with precisely defined concepts of symbolic nature, but it does with fuzzy concepts. Moreover, we need a great database of human situations to give food for the logical method to arrive at any real world conclusion. Such method would be best described as folk logic, or something other than mathematical logic in the least.