You're correct about truth but that's why when you're having an honest philosophical discussion you have to define terms and make sure everyone understands what is being discussed. In such a situation, with those limits imposed, you wouldn't confuse the fruit with the logo.

Arguing from a faulty premise is a huge problem, especially in politics, and people do it all the time, especially ideologues, and they wonder why others don't understand them. If you believe all Democrats are evil, and Joe Biden is a Democrat, then you naturally conclude that Joe Biden is evil. But I would forever remain skeptical of such a claim without proof of every single Democrats' evil nature. But the premises of outlandish beliefs like that never get discussed or openly questioned. So people argue stupidly.

I had the privilege of teaching a few weeks of philosophy to a fifth grade class last month. They were really eager and asked some great questions. When we discussed "truth" we settled on a general definition of that which you can either empirically verify or, in the case of ethics, that which appeals most to our personal values and sense of right and wrong. It was fun discussing counterexamples to our beliefs and definitions; their eyes would bug out when they realized that truth indeed is malleable depending on the circumstances or conditions.