It's asking a question that assumes things that aren't necessarily true, so that any answer you give will seem to be agreeing with something that you don't really agree with.

For example, the question "Are you still believing in that satanic Wicca religion?" Any answer given will seem to at least admit that Wicca is satanic, when it is not.

Known in law as leading the witness. For example, the question "Do you still cheat on exams?" is actually two questions: 1) "Do you now, or have you ever, cheated on exams?" and, if 1 is answered in the affirmative, 2) "Do you still cheat on exams?" There is no proper answer except "I refuse to answer."

A logical fallacy where two unrelated points are combined and treated as one proposition, where if the proposition is false both points are considered false. It is an invalid use of the logical and operator. In formal logic, "not(A and B) implies (not A) and (not B)".

An example: "Do you hate children and dogs". You could hate children and love dogs, or vice versa, but the negative answer would assume you like both.

To prove the use of complex question, show that the proposition contains two distinct points, where one's truth value is unrelated to the other's.

Most of the examples given above are actually False Premise. For example, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" assumes that you beat your wife. BTW, the answer is mu ;)

Note that "not(A and B) implies (not A) or (not B)" is not a logical fallacy (see DeMorgan's Law). In conversation, you must often be clear that your negative answer is interpreted properly.

Most people don't realize that these are not yes/no questions, but they are easy to reply to, without nonsense like 'Mu'... Use complex answers:

"Do you hate children and dogs?" "I hate children, but love dogs."

As Anomie stated in the above wu, the others are not complex questions and can be answered simply:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" "I've never beaten my wife."
"Do you still cheat on exams?" "I've never cheated."

The complex question is also sometimes known as the Fallacy of interrogation or the Fallacy of presupposition. The complex question is frequently used by lawyers during cross-examination. The lawyer will attempt to place extreme pressure and stress on the witness before asking a question such as, "WHERE DID YOU PUT THE MONEY YOU STOLE FROM MR. WOOD?!", in hopes that the witness will slip up. A lot of the time, it works. See loaded question; the complex question is the interrogative form of Begging the Question.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.