I am not 100% sure that your argument is a formal logical fallacy, but it does appear to be akin to the informal logical fallacy known as the red herring fallacy. The chart on bitcoincore.org only shows the number of adopters of SegWit based on previous blocks submitted. It is not possible to logically infer that a non-SegWit block implies a "no" answer. While each block without SegWit could be a "no" answer, it is possible some of those blocks are from people too lazy to update, undecided or confused, simply holding out in an attempt to delay adoption, or with who knows what other reason.
1) I wasn't aware we were adopting formal debate rules in this thread.
2) SegWit requires acceptance (an actual implementation) or non-acceptance; "might", "confused", or "other" are not options.
3) An abstaining vote, from that which requires actual implementation to be a "yes", is still a "no".*
4) "Simply holding out in an attempt to delay adoption" is a "no".*
5) Due to the nature of the acceptance rule (2) any non-"yes" is a "no" (there can be no "maybe" in something that, by definition, requires a hard "yes" or a hard "no").*
6) Because someone's current vote is "no", they are not estopped from later changing that vote to a "yes"; however, a later change does not change the current "no" form current existence.
Any more Ph.D. tests or may we continue the thread?
*Robert's Rules of Order apply loosely
Logic dictates that any list that "only tells you who said 'yes'" still, in fact, tells you who said "no". If a list of "yes" votes = ~25%, then the other ~75% said "no".
If you invoke logic as an argument, you should actually use it properly. 
