In “Carrion is forbidden to you,” reason supports the need to understand some relevant action. Yet that inference alone need not determine the precise choice of eating rather than another possible use. The governing legal and linguistic context must narrow the possibilities.
There are two distinct questions:
1. Does omission exist? Some relevant action is understood.
2. What exactly is omitted? Eating is the contextually intended activity.
Evidence that establishes the first does not automatically settle the second.