Complex Question Fallacy

plurium interrogationum
(also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question,
false question)

Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects
the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse,
and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the
question and accepts it as a fact.

Example #1:

How many times per day do you beat your wife?

Explanation: Even if the response is an emphatic, “none!” the damage has been done. If you are
hearing this question, you are more likely to accept the possibility that the person who was asked
this question is a wife-beater, which is fallacious reasoning on your part.

Example #2:

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

Explanation: The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school
shootings. This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a
more complex question. Reactively, when one hears a question such as this, one's mind will
attempt to search for an answer to the question—which is actually a distraction from rejecting the
implicit claim being made. It is quite brilliant but still fallacious.

Exception: It is not a fallacy if the implied information in the question is known to be an accepted
fact.

How long can one survive without water?

Here, it is presumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.
I. Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is
worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not
true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical
technique, the conclusion (usually an answer to the question) must be present
either implicitly or explicitly.

A. Other names for this fallacy include: fallacy of loaded question, many
questions, false question, leading question, trick question, and fallacia
plurium interrogationum.

B. The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form
or a question. The fallacy involves the asking of a question that tacitly
assumes the truth of a statement (or occurrence of a state of affairs) not
generally granted or not given into evidence.

C. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be evaluated as

a statement, i.e., a verbal expression implicitly having a truth value.

D. The informal structure of the fallacy is sometimes used to invoke some

kind of action in accordance with the following:

INFORMAL GUIDE TO COMPLEX QUESTION

How or why are related statements p and q the case? (Where

either p or q or both are unwarranted assumptions.)

So statement p or q or both are assumed to be true (often for the sake of

affirming something else).

For example, consider the following:

“How can we save our country from the bureaucratic dictatorship, the
corruption, and the creeping socialism of the present administration?
Only one way — through the Independent Party.”

The truth of the existence of the states of affairs alluded to in the

question needs to be established or settled before evaluating whether the
truth of the conclusion logically follows.
II. The problems associated with both the fallacy and the rhetorical techniques of
complex question often are used as techniques of subterfuge by persons in
authority to elicit a confession or to manipulate attitudes.

A. Although often manipulative, unethical, and improper, complex

questions in the form of leading questions occur in surveys, law courts,
journalistic interviews, and police cross-examinations. Leading questions
can be assumptive, implicative, or intimidating, not all of which are
necessarily fallacious.

1. Assumptive questions are designed to take for granted the very

question at issue in order to induce a specific response.

As a former police interrogator and fraud examiner states,

“Regardless of the questioner's surety of … guilt, it would be
most sensible to start with [a] question [that] … assumes guilt,
which makes the job of denial more difficult than issuing a simple
‘no.’”[1]

2. Counselors, psychologists, and related professionals use complex

question as an investigative technique.

For example, a noted psychotherapist writes, “We therapists have

our little cunning ways—statements such as: ‘I wonder what
blocks you from acting upon the decision you already seem to
have made.’”[2]

3. Although some leading questions may be asked as the discretion

of the presiding judge, in general they are not permitted because
they have been shown to alter testimony.

After one of Hugo Münsterberg's eye-witness testimony

experiments at Harvard, “the leading question was put to each
member of the class—‘Did you notice the stove in the room?’
(there was no stove there)—and 59 per cent of the class answered
‘Yes,’ and having once admitted seeing the stove they proceeded
to locate it, and tell in what part of the room it was.”[3]

4. Francis Wellman, the famous trial lawyer, writes, “[I]t is easy to

produce evidence that varies very widely from the exact truth.
This is often done by overzealous practitioners by putting leading
 questions or by incorporating two questions into one, the second a
simple one, misleading the witness into a ‘yes’ for both, and thus
creating an entirely false impression.”[4]

B. Identification of the presuppositions of a complex question and

clarifying what is at issue has much in common with “dividing the
question” as is done in an application of the rules of order in conducting
meetings:

“Dividing a question. When a motion embraces several parts, each of

which forms substantially a separate proposition, the resolution of it into
distinct motions or questions is called dividing the question.
… Advantage of such division. It affords the assembly an opportunity to
receive or to reject what part it thinks proper …”[5]

C. The technique of resolving complex questions is also comparable to

understanding the need for a “line-item veto” where particular provisions
of a list can be vetoed without rejecting all provisions of a proposal.

D. Occasionally, the fallacy of complex question is simply an unproven

assertion of evidence in an argument, and a question (i.e., an
interrogative sentence) is not present in the passage.

For example, in Barack Obama's primary campaign against Hillary

Clinton, Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice condemned Clinton's
policy of Iraq and Iran by demanding an ”explanation of how and why
she got those critical judgments wrong.”[6]

Or in the 2016 U.S. Presidential race Froma Harrop argues, “Left on the
table is the biggest and most troubling question mark: whether
[candidate Donald] Trump is mentally stable. Evidence overflows that he
is not. That someone so clearly disturbed got this far in a presidential
race is absolutely terrifying.”[7]

E. Rarely, the fallacy occurs with the presuppositions of the question

explicitly stated in separate statements as in this example:

“Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote recently: ‘It is

the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself
as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were
all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the
nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks millionaires
 and billionaires. Who regularly makes it clear that he considers himself
the president of the other — the good Americans. How's that for
presidential tone?’”[8]

F. The fallacy of complex question is often effected by the fallacy of a false

choice (or false dilemma) where the assumption of alternative states of
affairs omits one or more other possibilities. Consider this example:

“[President Trump] continued to cite a discredited survey … purporting

to show that many Muslims in this country support ‘global jihad’ and the
replacement of our legal system with Islamic Sharia Law. Is Trump just
playing politics or is he truly an anti-Muslim bigot who believes this
rubbish? At this point it hardly matters.”[9]

The assumed dichotomy in this example of Trump eitherplaying

politics or being anti-Muslim omits other possible alternative states of
affairs.

III. The assumption or presupposition to a complex question can only be known

from the context. Not all cases where something not generally granted is
assumed are fallacious because not all such passages involve arguments.
A. E.g., a prosecutor demands from a defendant, “Did you commit the
murder before or after you bought the soft drink?”

Here, no argument is being given, so no fallacy occurs. Obviously, the

whole sense of the question changes if the prosecutor is asking the
question just after the defendant confessed to the murder.

B. The classic question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” would not
be a fallacy unless explicitly or implicitly the speaker is assuming
without evidence that you beat your wife, and this is the very point he
wishes to draw as a conclusion. It's difficult to construct this example in
such a way that a fallacy, instead of a rhetorical technique, occurs. This
interrogative sentence, often used as a defining example of the fallacy of
complex question is not a fallacy unless it occurs as a premise in an
argument.

C. As an example of “unpacking” presuppositions of a question, analyze

what is being assumed in the following example sentence:

“What church do you and your family attend?”

 The main presuppositions can be listed as follows:

1. You attend church.

2. You have a family.
3. Your family attends church.
4. You and your family attend the same church.

IV. Here are some assorted examples of the fallacy of complex question:

1. “If a choice must be made, I'll adopt God's nonexistence as a working

assumption. If I am mistaken, I hope He is not offended by my demand for
evidence. (Many believers seem to think that God is offended by atheists. Is he
overly proud or merely insecure?)”[10].

2. “When software programs are trying to outsmart other software programs

and hack the world's trading platforms, that is a recipe for disaster.… How
many times an hour are there failures across individual equities around the
world because of software running algorithms battling each other for
supremacy to make a profitable trade? We have no idea.”[11].

3. “Look very closely. You will see that no person and no circumstance can
prevent you from becoming a self-understanding man or woman. Who is
stopping you at this very moment? No one.”[12].

4. The following passage on the problem of redistribution is discussing whether

people should be paid on how hard they try, rather than rewarding those with
natural ability:

“How hard you're willing to work is powerfully influenced by how much skill
nature has given you and thus how much chance you have of achieving a
satisfying success. The case for redistribution is not without its troubles:
Anyone who says that what nature has given you has nothing to do with what
 you should be allowed to keep must ultimately answer questions like why
couples who produce beautiful children shouldn't be made to give some of
them to parents who can only turn out ugly ducklings.” [13]

V. Nonfallacious examples of complex question are usually rhetorical techniques,

as explained above. Again for a fallacy to occur an argument must be present.
A. If a question's presuppositions are legitimately assumed by all parties,
and the presuppositions are all relevant, then no fallacy has been
committed.

B. Often the phrase “complex question” is used in a descriptive,

nonfallacious sense to describe a topic that does not have well-delineated
elements or well-understood factors as in the following instances:

“It's not always possible to answer a complex question about how

something works with one experiment. The question needs to be broken
down into parts, each of which can be formulated as a hypothesis.”[14]

“[IBM scientists] demonstrated that a computing system — using

traditional strengths and overcoming assumed limitations — could
beat expert humans in a complex question-and-answer
competition using natural language.”[15]

Consequently, rather than any sort of logical error occurring in these

passages, a heterogeneous topic is being described.

C. Fallacy Practice: Analyze the following passages and state whether or

not the fallacy of complex question has occurred.

1. “An almost equally exasperating aspect of the autonomy struggle

is the toddler's inability to make choices. The parent asks whether
the child wants a cookie or a lollipop. First the child says,
‘Cookie,’ but as soon as he gets the cookie, he wants a lollipop.
The parent patiently takes away the cookie and gives the toddler a
lollipop, but now the child wants the cookie again. The problem is
that the child wants the right to choose, but does not want to make
a choice. From the child's point of view, he does not have a choice
unless he can choose them both.” No argument is being given, so
 no fallacy occurs. The passage is best analyzed as a
miscommunication based on the ambiguity of 'or' as being either
the exclusive or inclusive sense of the word.

2. “Shoppers at F.W. Woolworth Co.'s stores might detect one

means of a company minimizing its borrowing needs. According
to Ellis Smith, executive vice president of finance, the company
‘hardly acknowledges’ it own charge system. The first question
our people are instructed to ask is, ‘Is the purchase cash?’ If it
isn't, the second question is ‘Is this Visa or Master Charge?’ Since
no argument is being given, no fallacy occurs. The rhetoric might
mislead the customer, but no fallacy occurs.

3. “Agence France-Presse concluded its story by noting, ‘Studies

have described a rise in the prevalence of mental disorders in
China, some of them linked to stress as the pace of life becomes
faster and socialist support systems falter.’ There [sic] is sheer
preposterous propaganda. What ’study‘ could possibly prove that
stress regarding ‘the pace of life’ and the decline of ’socialist
support systems‘ (whatever they are) had increased mental
illness? Western intellectuals, very much including the press, are
still in love with socialism—even its communist variant. The
passage raises a question of fact but is not a complex question.

4. “Concerning the July 16 Cover Story, ‘The Euro's Fate’ Is that the
best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy the middle
class by crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce unnaturally
low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for irresponsible
politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several generations that
will be impoverished with debt.” Complex Question -- the
assumptions are explicitly stated without evidence.

5. “There is a tale, probably apocryphal, told of that notoriously

merry monarch Charles II. There was a dinner to commemorate
 the foundation of the Royal Society. At the end of the evening,
‘with the peculiar gravity of countenance which he usually wore
on such occasions,’ he put a challenge to the Fellows. ‘Suppose
two pails of water were fixed in two different scales that were
equally poised, and which weighted equally alike, and that two
live bream, or small fish, were put into either of these pails.‘ He
wanted to know the reason why that pail, with such additions
should not weigh more than the other pail which stood against it.
Many suggested possible explanations, and argued for their own
suggestions with more or less vigour. But at last one who perhaps
remembered that the motto of that great society is ‘Nullium in
verba’ (Take no man's word for it!) denied the assumption: ‘It
would weigh more.’ The King was delighted: ‘Odds fish, brother,
you are in the right.’’ Originally, the King commits the fallacy of
complex question because in the phrasing of the question an
answer is assumed which is incorrect. However, the 'argument' is
being advanced in a less than sincere sense.

6. “Romney did what he has done when in trouble in the past. He

lashed out. ‘Do you want four more years with 23 million people
out of work or underemployed?’ he asked. ‘Do you want four
more years where incomes go down every single year? You want
four more years with gasoline prices doubling? Do you want four
more years with unemployment above 8 percent?‘ Romney was
shouting, jabbing his finger in the air. Neither the fallacy of
complex question nor ad populum.

7. “Bion, that was an atheist, was showed in a port city, in a temple

of Neptune, many tables of pictures, of such as had in tempests
made their vows to Neptune, and were saved from shipwreck: and
was asked, ‘How say you not? Do you not acknowledge the power
of the gods?’ But he said, ‘Yes, but where are they painted that
have been drowned after their vows?’. Complex question: The
question posed by Bion presupposes some shipwrecked sailors
who made vows to Neptune were lost -- an assumption not
granted by the believer in the power of Neptune even though it is
undoubtedly true. Also an _ad_ignorantiam_ fallacy is arguably
implicit in the passage.
 8. “ Joe, let's take a look at what is happening for you in the group.
Here you are, after two months, not feeling good about yourself in
this group and with several members impatient with you (or
intimidated, or avoidant, or angry, or annoyed, or feeling seduced
or betrayed). What's happened? Is this a familiar place for you?
Would you be willing to take a look at your role in bringing this to
pass? Complex question: The question presupposes that Joe was
the cause of the impatience of several members of the group.

9. “Cutting your next year's budget by 2% but still having it up 4%

from this year and calling it a ‘cut’ is ludicrous. [The suggestion
is] our leaders must kick the deficit-reduction can down the road
one more time. I ask: When exactly will it be a good time to have
economic contraction? Not a complex question: The author isn't
asserting there is no good time for an economic contraction, but is
asserting that it's best to have contraction sooner rather than later.
In any case the question is answerable without implicitly implying
a hidden assumption.

10. “Is that the best Europe can do? Print, print, print money; destroy
the middle class by crushing savers and stoking inflation; enforce
unnaturally low interest rates that only serve to provide cover for
irresponsible politicians; destroy the dreams of the next several
generations that will be impoverished with debt[?]Complex
Question Fallacy: The question posed makes a series of
unwarranted assumptions which need to be unpacked before they
can be addressed.

11. “To many women, the Donald Trump who debated Hillary
Clinton was painfully familiar.…Only two candidates stood in
that stage. Only one will name the next Supreme Court Justice.
Who do you want that to be? The bully or the nerd? The good girl
or the bad boy? There is no third option. Complex Question
Fallacy: The question presupposes that Hillary Clinton is a nerd
 and good girl while Donald Trump is a bully and bad boy. The
presumptive epithets chosen are neither emotively neutral nor
literally accurate descriptions of the presidential candidates.

12. “[President] Trump's assault on the concept of an independent

judiciary can be seen as something out of Orwell. ‘What is our
country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security
travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into
U.S.?’ Trump tweeted on Saturday. … So should that tweet be
read as a deliberate attempt to encourage fear as a way of
grabbing more power? Or was it simply Trump's pre-kindergarten
reflex to hit back at anyone who hits him? I think it was probably
the latter. Complex Question Fallacy: The question presupposes
Trump's tweet is either inducing fear in order to be more powerful
or exhibiting a childish reflex. Interpretations other than these
personal attacks should be considered.