Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Forum administrators, Interface administrators, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
116,623
edits
(→Looks like this fallacy but is not:: clean up) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (trope->useful notes) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
* 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 [
{{examples|
* Many [[Logic Bomb
** Sadly, that "[[Logic Bomb]]" can be answered easily; no. You don't always lie, but you do sometimes lie.
* In legal matters, these are considered a type of "[http://www.trialtheater.com/articles/leadingquestions.htm 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?". 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. Generally, they're in the form of "Did such-and-such happen?" instead of "What happened?"
* 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."
Line 35:
** Another episode 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"
{{quote|
'''Peter''': Well I guess [[False Dichotomy|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."
== [[Literature]] ==
* 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.
==== 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.
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Many Questions Fallacy]]
|