Editing Complex question

{{Short description|Question that has a built-in supposition}}
A '''complex question''', '''[[trick question]]''', '''multiple question''', '''fallacy of presupposition''', or {{lang|la|'''plurium interrogationum'''}} (Latin, 'of many questions')  is a [[question]] that has a complex [[presupposition]]. The presupposition is a [[proposition]] that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when they give any direct answer. When a presupposition includes an admission of wrongdoing, it is called a "[[loaded question]]" and is a form of [[entrapment]] in legal trials or debates. The presupposition is called "complex" if it is a [[Logical conjunction|conjunctive]] proposition, a [[Logical disjunction|disjunctive]] proposition, or a [[conditional sentence|conditional]] proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some [[logical connective]] in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.<ref name=Walton>{{cite journal |last1=Walton |first1=Douglas N. |title=The fallacy of many questions |journal=Logique et Analyse |date=1981 |volume=24 |issue=95/96 |page=291-313 |url=https://logiqueetanalyse.be/archive/issues87-220/LA095-096/LA095-096_02walton.pdf |access-date=23 February 2025}}</ref>

Complex questions can but do not have to be [[fallacy|fallacious]], as in being an [[informal fallacy]].<ref name=Walton/>

==Complex question fallacy==
{{more|Loaded question}}
The complex question fallacy, or ''many questions fallacy'', is context dependent; a [[presupposition]] by itself does not have to be a fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.<ref name=Walton/><ref name=mm>Michel Meyer, ''Questions and questioning'', Walter de Gruyter, 1988, {{ISBN|3-11-010680-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=nwo5qXTCJewC&q=%22complex+question%22&pg=PA218 Google Print, p. 198–199]</ref><ref name=dnw>Douglas N. Walton, ''Fundamentals of critical argumentation'', Cambridge University Press, 2006, {{ISBN|0-521-82319-6}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=gwnth0jgr_QC&dq=%22multiple+question%22+complex&pg=PA194 Google Print, p. 194–196]</ref><ref name=dnw1>Douglas N. Walton, ''Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation'', Cambridge University Press, 1989, {{ISBN|0-521-37925-3}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=kswimguc5uYC&dq=%22complex+question%22+%22Loaded+question%22&pg=PA36 Google Print, p. 36–37]</ref><ref name=dnw2>Douglas N. Walton. ''Witness testimony evidence: argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law'', Cambridge University Press, 2008, {{ISBN|0-521-88143-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=NUiqfszTvV0C&dq=%22complex+question%22+%22Loaded+question%22&pg=PA329 Google Print, p. 329]</ref> For example, "Is Mary wearing a blue or a red dress?" might be fallacious because it artificially restricts the possible responses to a blue or red dress, when in fact Mary might be wearing a different coloured dress, or trousers, or a skirt. If the person being questioned would not necessarily consent to those constraints, the question is fallacious.<ref name=Walton/><ref name=dnw/><ref name=dnw1/><ref name=dnw2/>

Hence we can distinguish between:
* legitimately complex question (not a fallacy): a question that assumes something that the hearer would readily agree to.  For example, "Who is the monarch of the United Kingdom?" assumes that there is a place called the United Kingdom and that it has a monarch, both true.
* illegitimately complex question:  "Who is the [[Present King of France|King of France]]?" would commit the complex question fallacy because while it assumes there is a place called France (true), it also assumes France currently has a king (false).  But since answering this question does not seem to incriminate or otherwise embarrass the speaker, it is complex but not really a loaded question.<ref name=POL>{{cite book |title =The Power of Logic | first =C. Stephen | last =Layman | year=  2003 | page= 158 }}</ref>

When a complex question contains ''controversial'' presuppositions (often with [[loaded language]]—having an unspoken and often emotive implication), it is known as a [[loaded question]].<ref name=mm/><ref name=dnw/><ref name=dnw2/> For example, a classic loaded question, containing incriminating assumptions that the questioned persons seem to admit to if they answer the questions instead of challenging them, is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the person questioned answers "yes" or "no", they imply that they have previously beaten their wife. A loaded question may be asked to trick the respondent into admitting something that the questioner believes to be true, and which may in fact be true.  So the previous question is "loaded", whether or not the respondent has actually beaten their wife–and if the respondent answers anything other than "yes" or "no" in an attempt to deny having beaten their wife, the questioner can accuse them of "trying to [[Question dodging|dodge the question]]".  The very same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded were it asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted having beaten one's wife.<ref name=dnw/>

===Similar questions and fallacies===
A similar fallacy is the [[double-barreled question]]. It is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer.<ref name=rb>[http://knowledge-base.supersurvey.com/response-bias.htm Response bias] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100213104701/http://knowledge-base.supersurvey.com/response-bias.htm |date=2010-02-13 }}. SuperSurvey, Ipathia  Inc.</ref><ref name=babbie251>Earl R. Babbie, Lucia Benaquisto, ''Fundamentals of Social Research'', Cengage Learning, 2009, [https://books.google.com/books?id=uGE6vMl_kZIC&dq=%22Double-barrelled+question%22&pg=PA251 Google Print, p. 251]</ref><ref name=bb>Alan Bryman, Emma Bell, ''Business research methods'', Oxford University Press, 2007, {{ISBN|0-19-928498-9}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=vpqjq4I9KGMC&dq=%22Double-barrelled+question%22&pg=PA268 Google Print, p. 267–268]</ref>

This fallacy can be also confused with {{lang|la|petitio principii}} ([[begging the question]]),<ref name=begging>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html Fallacy: Begging the Question] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190310182956/http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html |date=2019-03-10 }} ''The Nizkor Project''. Retrieved on: January 22, 2008</ref> which offers a [[premise]] no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the [[logical consequence|conclusion]].<ref name=SD>{{cite book |url=http://skepdic.com/begging.html |title=The Skeptic's Dictionary |first=Robert Todd |last=Carroll |isbn=0-471-27242-6 |publisher=[[John Wiley & Sons]] |author-link= Robert Todd Carroll |page= 51 }}</ref>

{{quote|Closely connected with {{lang|la|[petitio principii]}} is the fallacy of the Complex Question. By a complex question, in the broadest meaning of that term, is meant one that suggests its own answer. Any question, for instance, that forces us to select, and assert in our answer to it, one of the elements of the question itself, while some other possibility is really open, is complex in the sense in which that term is here employed. If, for example, one were to ask whether you were going to New York or London, or if your favourite colour were red or blue, or if you had given up a particular bad habit, he would be guilty of the fallacy of the complex question, if, in each case, the alternatives, as a matter of fact, were more numerous than, or were in any way different from, those stated in the question. Any leading question which complicates an issue by over simplification is fallacious for the same reason… In the {{lang|la|petitio principii}} an assumption with respect to the subject-matter of an argument functions as a premise, in the complex question it is a similar assumption that shuts out some of the material possibilities of a situation and confines an issue within too narrow limits. As in the former case, so here, the only way of meeting the difficulty is to raise the previous question, that is, to call the assumption which lies back of the fallacy into question.<ref name="Davies1915">{{cite book |first=Arthur Ernest |last=Davies |year=1915 |title=A Text-Book of Logic |publisher=R. G. Adams and company |lccn=15027713 |url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924029141690 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/cu31924029141690/page/n603 572]-573}}</ref>|Arthur Ernest Davies|"Fallacies" in ''A Text-Book of Logic''}}

==See also==
* [[Wicked problem]]

==Notes== 
{{reflist|35em}}

==External links==
*http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

{{Fallacies}}

[[Category:Verbal fallacies]]