Which strategy involves stating you will not discuss a certain issue to make a claim about it?

The strategy of stating that you will not discuss a certain issue to make a claim about it is known as paralepsis. This rhetorical technique allows a speaker or writer to bring attention to a subject by either denying or minimizing their intent to discuss it. By doing so, they can indirectly highlight the issue they are ostensibly avoiding, which can create intrigue or draw attention to the matter in question without addressing it head-on.

In a debate or advocacy context, paralepsis can be an effective tool for emphasizing particular points while maintaining an appearance of neutrality or detachment. This can be used strategically to frame the discussion in a way that influences the audience’s perception. For example, one might say, "I won't even mention the scandal that has arisen," which in itself highlights the scandal more than if it were openly addressed.

Other strategies mentioned do not focus on the act of bypassing an issue in this particular way. While selection fallacy relates to cherry-picking evidence to support an argument, majoring on minors involves focusing excessively on trivial details at the expense of more significant issues, and emotional appeals are centered on persuading an audience through emotion rather than logic. Each of these strategies serves different rhetorical purposes, thus distinguishing paralepsis as the correct choice