For example, in II:11 of Cur Deus Homo, St. Anselm says this ("A" is Anselm himself; "B" is Boso, his interlocutor):
A: Is it not fitting that man, who, by sinning, removed himself as far as he possibly could away from God, should, as recompense to God, make a gift of himself in an act of the greatest possible self-giving?
B: This is unsurpassable logic.
Uhh…well, if anything, the statement has to do with justice, not logic. So why on earth say that it's logic?
I wonder, in Anselm's defense, whether the translator has taken unjust or illogical liberties with the text. But this is a single example of a fairly common habit.
This isn't logic. There is no conclusion here; there is an observation about fitness. I'm not going to argue the fitness of what Anselm says, but I certainly dispute the idea that I've been compelled by the force of argument to concede that.