COMPOUND(COMPL

EX) QUESTIONS
Lawaddict

COMPOUND/COMPLEX
QUESTIONS
Arises when an argument is
phrased as a single question
rather than two or more separate
questions.
Several questions are combined
in such a manner as to place the
person who responds in a selfincriminating position

T H I S FA L L A C Y A R I S E S W H E N. .
When two or more questions are
asked at

once and a single answer

is required.
It is phrased as to beg another
question
The question makes a false
presumption.
The assertion frames a complex
question but demands a simple
answer.

NEGATIVE
COMPOUND
Missouri v. Debold
Q: At that point, [defendant] didnt have a gun to
your head
and say give me your money, did
he?
A: No, He didnt.

PETITIO PRINCIPII
Also known as :
Arguing in a circle
Circular Reasoning

"Circular argument: A sentence

or argument that restates rather
than proves. Thus, it goes in a
circle

In order to prove A is true, B is used as proof, but since B

requires support, C is used as defense of B, but C also
needs proof and is substantiated by A.
Gracie : Gentlemen prefer blondes.
George: How do you know that?
Gracie: A gentleman told me so.
George: How did you know he was a
gentleman.
Gracie: Because he preferred
blondes.

The question is begged in the simplest form when

we proceed in a single step, by the use of synonyms
to the conclusion already stated in the premises.
We may put another fact that we want to prove, or
its equivalent under another name.
A sleeping pill a medicine that has a soporific
effect.
It isnt over until its over.
You know you can see a lot by merely looking.

NOTE!
"Thecircular argumentuses its
own conclusionas one of its stated
or unstated premises.
Instead of offering proof, it simply
asserts the conclusion in another
form, thereby inviting the listener
to accept it as settled when, in fact,
it has not been settled.
The premise is no different from
and therefore as questionable as its
conclusion, a circular argument
violates the criterion of
acceptability."

Imaginary conversation between Socrates and Crito

from United States v Janotti about conspiracy and
federal jurisdiction.
Soc: Is there federal jurisdiction?
Crito: Yes, there is federal jurisdiction.
Soc: How is there federal jurisdiction?
Crito: There is federal jurisdiction because factual
impossibility of performing a conspiracy is no defense to
a charge of conspiracy which may be brought when
there is federal jurisdiction.
Instead of proving the conclusion, the argument
assumes it and then argues substantive law : Factual
impossibility as a defense to conspiracy charge.