(Please note that this question is a hypothetical example with a premise that can't be challenged. When I say this fictitious principal sabotaged a test, and a reporter knowingly lied about it, that's exactly what happened. The question is "What kind of fallacy would we have IF the premise is exactly as it was described.")
Imagine a school with an unusually high parental involvement rate. Parents even collaborate with teachers in choosing curricula and devising tests, which are scored with the help of a computer.
One day, the principal sabotages a test without telling anyone. People are surprised when students score unusually low, and some suspect foul play. Local activists begin complaining about a "scam."
A local newspaper reporter writes an article about the situation. He assures readers that the students scored low because they're getting too much recess. (a lie) The solution is to shorten recess and make students stay after school for special tutoring. (Is this sentence a fallacy, or just a worthless "opinion"?) He says, "If there had been a scam, some teacher or parent would have blown the whistle." (a lie and/or fallacy?)
The reporter knows that a) the principal sabotaged the test, and b) teachers and parents knew nothing about it. So he's effectively lying when he implies that teachers and parents would have knowledge of a scam.
His logic is as follows:
Teacher/Parent blows the whistle = scam
No one blows the whistle = no scam
Again, teachers and parents can't blow the whistle if they don't know what's going on behind their backs.
What kind of fallacy has this reporter committed?