Interpreting ambiguous agreement

We're proud of our tortilla chips and we hope you'll agree.

It may seem trivial but I've seen similar remarks on other products and it just doesn't feel like a valid sentence because I can't determine what they hope I'll agree with them about.

I don't think I'm just missing out on the context as this sentence is preceded by nothing and is only followed by one more:

Remember, your satisfaction is always guaranteed with [our] brand products.

Am I supposed to share their pride?

Am I supposed to be agreeing that they are proud of their product? If so, is there really a difference between their statement and an example of me saying, "I like pizza and I hope you will agree."

Does anyone know if there is any sort of common characterization of this type of flaw?

Solution 1:

My own grammar is not too hot, but the sentence you've quoted is awful. It reads as if they hope you will agree that they are proud.

As for naming the error, I'm sure a language expert will manage that more expertly than I can, but as a wild stab I'll suggest it might be a dangling modifier.

Solution 2:

I agree with Ed's analysis. They want you to agree that the chips are something to be proud of: the statement "we are proud of our tortilla chips" implies because they are good; and they want you to agree that the chips are good.

However, this ellipsis (the omission of something implicit) fails, because the exact statement that has been left out in ellipsis must be explicit somewhere in the preceding sentence: ellipsis usually doesn't work with implicit statements. We'd be forced to supply the omitted part from the preceding and thus interpret it as you'll agree that we are proud.

Any sentence that ends in such a way as to break the grammar of the beginning or vice versa could be considered an ugly anacoluthon. Or just plain nonsense.