Logic Explained Through Violets

Tautology is A=>A. If it’s the color violet, it’s violet. 

If it’s a violet flower, it is the color violet. A=>B.

If it's not the color violet, it’s not a violet flower. That’s modus tollens. 

If it is a violet flower, then it is that color. That’s modus ponen. 

Violet is violet. Tautology. A=>A

Violet flowers are violet. A=>B

It'd also be equivocation to state the Color is the Flower.

Not all violets are violet; or some violets are blue, makes the statement categorical.

Therefore, "Violets are violet" becomes an inductive argument, because it's based on the probability of a violet being violet.

"Violets aren't blue," and abductive argument would hypothesize said speaker probably never has seen a blue violet, or lives in a continent outside of the United States, or outside of the Eastern part of it, or doesn't know such a flower exists.

The poet, though, relates violet as being blue, like the poet relates a rainbow as being purple, either through etymological or lyrical depth: the poem originates in England, so the word is being used in a poetic shade of meaning, and not related to the Blue Violet found in the Eastern United States. And this is how creative writing works.