Disagreement may result from inadequate understanding of a subject or predicate. Before assessing their connection, one must clarify what each term means. Thus an obscured conception should not automatically be equated with a false first principle.
Words such as “cause,” “choice,” and “preference” may be used differently by rival disputants. Their apparent answers can then concern distinct propositions rather than one identical proposition.
Clarifying meanings will not settle every dispute: one side may still argue incorrectly. But the possibility of a particular reasoning mistake is a reason for case-specific examination, not a warrant for denying all foundational knowledge.