Current evaluation methods for Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) suffer from \textit{factual myopia}: they relentlessly emphasize factual accuracy yet neglect global logical integrity in long-form answer generation. This drives models to force unnatural connections, producing factually grounded yet logically incoherent responses with unaddressed gaps, ambiguous links, or redundant premises. To mitigate this, we present \textsc{LogicScore}, shifting from local, fact-by-fact assessment to rigorous global reasoning scrutiny. Grounded in Horn Rules, our approach integrates a backward verification mechanism to systematically evaluate three key reasoning dimensions: \textit{Completeness} (logically sound deduction), \textit{Essentiality} (non-redundancy), and \textit{Determinateness} (consistent answer entailment). Extensive experiments across three multi-hop QA datasets (HotpotQA, MusiQue, and 2WikiMultiHopQA) and over 20 LLMs (including GPT-5, Gemini-3-Pro, LLaMA3, and task-specific tuned models) reveal a critical capability gap: leading models often achieve high factual accuracy (e.g., 92.85\% precision for Gemini-3 Pro) but struggle with global reasoning quality (e.g., 35.11\% Essentiality for Gemini-3 Pro). Our work establishes a robust standard for logical evaluation, highlighting the need to prioritize reasoning coherence alongside factual grounding in LLM development.