[Louis Foxwell]

The fallacy is non sequitor (it does not follow that...).
B does not follow from A.
C does not follow from A or B.
The sylogism is irrational.

[SAJ]

Yes, indeed a non sequitur, well done. This isn't false dichotomy, because the limitation of exactly two alternatives is not defined. The presence of a quantified epistemic premise ('Most of the world does not know') as the operational impetus to 'conclusion' makes this argument a hopeless muddle, logically. Probably should be phrased as ((p ^ q) ^ r) > (~p v ~q), or perhaps better, ((p ^ q) ^ Kr) > (~p v ~q), both of which are clearly not theorems by inspection.