- Complex Question
- Loaded Question
- Interrogation Fallacy
- Fallacy of Presupposition
- Demanding a Simple Answer to a Complex Question
The interrogative version of Begging the Question, the Many Questions Fallacy occurs where a question is asked that assumes the answer to one or more additional questions, and a demand is made that it be answered without qualifiers. The classic example is "have you stopped beating your wife? Answer Yes or No!" — The question assumes a positive answer to an unstated second question ("have you ever beaten your wife?"); as a result, if you answer "Yes" you are admitting that you used to beat her, but if you answer "No" you are admitting that you still beat her. A qualified answer such as "I haven't stopped because I never did." is not accepted. A similar situation occurs if the person asked has never even been married; "I've never been married" is not accepted as an answer even though it is by far the most truthful answer to give.
An even more devious version of this fallacy is to make the accusations in such a way as to preempt the subject from being able to give any simple rebuttal. To return to the classic example of domestic abuse, "When did you stop beating your wife?" forces the subject to counter both the assumption that he has beaten his wife, and that he has been beating his wife for some time. To complicate matters further, asking "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" casually assumes that he has beaten his wife, has been beating his wife, and is still beating her now, thus loading three accusations into one question, all of which can be difficult to answer in the time-limited formats such as during a political debate or in a press conference with hostile reporters seeking quick soundbites. (Not to mention, as stated above, the question of whether the person being accused of beating his wife is or has even been married.)
Looks like this fallacy but is not:
- When the question includes an assumption which is regarded as uncontroversial. For example, "Where were you last night, sir?" assumes the person being questioned to be male, but is not fallacious unless the person's gender is actually in question. It also assumes that there was, in fact, a last night, and that the person being questioned existed at that time and was in some location, but these are also not generally questionable assumptions.
Compare Morton's Fork, where two or more choices all lead to the same outcome.
- In Secrets Harry defends Snape and the Malfoys in front of the Wizengamot after Voldemort is defeated. One member claims that they might backslide once separated from Harry's influence.
Harry: In other words, youre afraid of pardoning them unless I agree to watch over them like children. You wish to make me responsible for them.
Wizengamot member: Are you unwilling to be held responsible for them?
Harry: What kind of question is that? If I say yes, you take it to mean that I think they need someone to watch over them. If I say no, you take it to mean that Im not willing to stand behind their actions.
- In Daddy's Little Girls, the protagonist is asked "Did you or did you not go to jail for rape?". He did, but it turns out that the underlying assumption - that he actually committed the rape that he was convicted of - was false.
- Many Logic Bombs require such a fallacy; for example, the Master Computer will be obliged by its programming to give only an unqualified yes or no answer to a question like "I always lie, and this is the truth, am I telling the truth?" It's impossible to give a yes or no answer to this question that is correct, but the Master Computer will not have sufficient programming to point out either that the question cannot be answered, or to note it is being obliged to assume a positive answer to "do you always lie?"
- In legal matters, these are considered a type of "leading questions", where the intent is to persuade someone being questioned towards a certain line of replies. For example, "You saw the defendant with a knife in his hand, right?" is a loaded version of "Was the defendant carrying anything?", among other questions. Leading questions are for the most part severely discouraged and have led to the collapse of cases where it became clear that witnesses had, for various reasons, allowed themselves to be led into giving completely false testimony. Note that there's a difference between a "loaded" and a "leading" question; they are often confused. A loaded question is one that assumes some fact. For instance, if the witness says that he saw someone leaving the scene, then "Was the defendant carrying anything?" is a loaded question, because it assumes that the person that the witness saw was the defendant. A leading question is one that prompts a particular response. Often, they're in the form of "Such-and-such happened, correct?" or "Did such-and-such happen?", though the latter depends somewhat on context; for example, if the question is in response to a witness's testimony regarding an event they thought might happen, and the attorney is attempting to confirm whether or not the event did happen. The open-ended "What happened?" is never considered to be a leading question.
- Similarly, it's a common cross-examination trick to do this, because the attorney conditions the witness to respond "Yes" or "No" to everything and then traps them with a question like this. The delay as the person scrambles to shift from simple "yes" and "no" answers and mentally compose what they want to say can make them look uncertain. If the questioning attorney tries to insist on a simple "yes or no" answer, the opposing attorney will usually make the objection "Assumes a fact not in evidence." Unfortunately, the objection doesn't always work. An earlier witness may have testified to the claimed fact. An example of a loaded question is, "Did you smirk when you kicked him?" This can't be answered yes or no if the witness never kicked him. Nevertheless, the objection wouldn't apply if someone earlier had testified that this witness had kicked the person. The simple, obvious solution is for the judge to allow the witness to answer, "I never kicked him."note
- Note that at common law, and under the modern rules of evidence in most countries adhering to an adversarial system (where the lawyers, not the judge, ask most of the questions), you are not allowed to ask leading questions of witnesses favorable to you, but are allowed to ask leading questions of witnesses hostile to you. It is generally assumed that any witness you call is favorable to you, and any witness called by the other side is hostile to you, but if a witness you called is known to be or has turned out to be hostile to you, the judge may grant the attorney permission to treat the witness as hostile (and thus allow him/her to ask leading questions). Please note that you can ask leading questions, not loaded ones: if a defense witness being cross-examined by the prosecution in a criminal case says "I saw someone leaving the scene," the prosecution is allowed to say "And that person was the defendant, yes?" but is not allowed to say, "And did you see the defendant carrying a knife?" (or rather, isn't allowed to say that yet: if the prosecutor starts by asking the first of these two questions, and the witness says "yes" to the first question, then the second question is permissible, as it has been established that the witness saw the defendant leaving the scene). If the witness was called by the prosecution, both of these questions would be impermissible: the prosecutor would have to ask "Whom did you see?" and "Were they carrying anything?" and then "What were they carrying?"
- Sometimes, this kind of rhetorical trickery is used for Perp Sweating or getting a certain emotional reaction out of a suspect instead of leading a witness. In a book by FBI profiler John Douglas, for instance, he mentions a trial in which he was advising the prosecution's lawyers in their attempts to convict a serial killer of several murders. The jury didn't understand a lot of the complicated scientific evidence they were presenting for his having committed the murders, and the defense was doing very well at presenting the superficially charming killer (when they had him take the stand) as an innocent and upstanding citizen too mild-mannered to commit the crimes of which he was being accused. On John Douglas' advice, when the prosecution cross-examined the killer, the prosecutor stepped up very close to him and demanded "Did you panic when you strangled [the victim]!? Huh!? Did you panic!?" While the defense immediately yelled their objections, the rattled killer started ranting angrily about how he hated the police and the prosecution and what "fools" they all were. The defense's objections were (of course) sustained, but the damage to their client's charming image was done, and the jury finally started taking the prosecution's evidence seriously enough to convict the killer of the murders.
- Another common one is "stop pretending to be stupid". No matter how you answer, you implicitly are either admitting to pretending to be stupid or to being just plain stupid. Very nearly everyone has had a parent or guardian pull this at some point or other.
- "Does your mother/father/parent know you're gay/about all the penguins you've raped/that you're a child molester?"
- Accusations of "When are you going to stop being a rape apologist?" are very common, especially on Twitter, since it's difficult to defend against them with only 140 characters.
- The old joke "Do these pants make me look fat?" Say yes and you just called your wife fat, hurting her feelings. Say no, and you're accused of lying and hurting your wife's feelings. Some twists on the joke has the husband/boyfriend Take a Third Option, such as one candy commercial having said husband/boyfriend stuffing his mouth with the candy bar so that he can't give a coherent answer.
- (At least) In Finland, once a man turns 18, they need to choose between army training, civilian service or prison. A few decades ago, the second option required a valid reason (nowadays it's more accepted), and pretty much the only accepted reason was pacifism. However, those who chose it were then interviewed to see if they really practiced what they preached; they were asked such lovely questions as "You and your girlfriend/wife are attacked on an alleyway. You see a baseball bat leaning against a wall, what do you do?" If you answered "fight back", they used it to "prove" that you were lying and have nothing against violence, and choosing "do nothing or run" obviously made you look like an cowardly asshole who'd let their girl get assaulted. Fortunately, this kind of trickery has been buried for a while now.
- Plato depicts Socrates doing this all the time, along with Begging the Question, Appeal to Nature, and the Four Terms Fallacy. And a lot of the Converse Error. It was an important element in his razor reasoning with which he beat opponents like Gorgias into submission, and was not at the time considered illegitimate, since formal logic was in its infancy. Despite this, common historical belief is that Socrates hated sophists (although he was labeled one).
- In Chocolat, Vianne's claims of innocence don't influence Reynaud's judgement of her at all: she is still the criminal he pegged her as before they met. All they "prove" is that she's in denial about her crimes, or trying to conceal them. There is literally nothing Vianne can do that won't validate Reynaud's preconceptions about her.
- Stephen Colbert is often fond of quizzing guests, "Bush: great president, or the greatest president?"
- Broadchurch lawyer and Hate Sink Sharon Bishop asks Ellie how long had she been having an affair with DI Hardy. Ellie, not unnaturally, goes "What?" and is told that she is under oath, and how long was that affair again? There are not enough words to express how much real lawyers are not allowed to do this.
- This can sometimes be used to brand someone a traitor in Paranoia - simply ask "Are you a happy communist?" If they say no, they're saying they're not happy, which is treason. But if they say yes, then they're saying they're a communist, which is also treason. This can backfire, however; if the Computer doesn't buy your interpretation, then you've just accused them of being a traitor without proof, which is itself treasonous.
- This Left Handed Toons strip gives the example of, "Have you told your parents you're gay yet?"
- The Simpsons:
- "The Bart-Mangled Banner" has the family being accused of being unpatriotic but, when given the chance to clarify, are asked loaded questions such as, "Which part of America do you hate the most?" There is no "correct answer", since naming any part allows the assumption that you hate the other parts too, just not as much.
- "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes" showed the Springfield Police Department official website, whose front page says "If you committed a crime and you wish to confess, click 'Yes'. Otherwise click 'No'". If you click 'No', the site assumes you committed a crime but don't wish to confess and dispatches a police car to your house.
- Used in the Family Guy episode "Screwed the Pooch," which doubles as an example of False Dichotomy.
Lawyer: What phrase best describes Brian, "problem drinker" or "African-American haberdasher"?
Peter: Well I guess of the two, "problem drinker", but I don't see...
Lawyer: How about this: "sexual deviant" or "magic picture that if you stare at long enough, you will see something."
- In The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad during Mr. Toad's trial the prosecutor barrages Toad's friends with loaded questions demanding yes-or-no answers and once they answer yes or no he dismisses them before they can elaborate further.
- In one episode when Darkwing Duck was trying to clean up his image, Negaduck sabotaged him at a press conference by asking him a series of these, such as whether he'd stopped digging pot holes and scaring children. That someone (almost certainly Negaduck himself, he being Darkwing Duck's Evil Twin) had been doing all of these things made responding to these accusations that much more difficult for Darkwing.
- A particularly manipulative version of this occurs in so called "push polls", which usually takes the form of asking "If you knew Bob (insert some really unpleasant and usually completely made up claim) would you be more or less likely to vote for him". Obviously, they don't really care what the person thinks, it's just away to make the claim without actually saying anything legally actionable.