critical thinking loaded question fallacy

9 Loaded Question Fallacy Examples in Life and Media

There might be affiliate links on this page, which means we get a small commission of anything you buy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Please do your own research before making any online purchase.

We all make assumptions. 

Making assumptions is a way to save brain power, as we can simply put patterns together of human behavior or other phenomena based on our past experiences. Doing so helps us make sense of the world as we encounter new people or situations. 

And while making assumptions isn’t always a bad thing, doing so can be problematic when you’re interacting with others.

Has anyone ever asked you a question in a way that immediately put you on the defense because it made you look like a bad person, regardless of whether the answer was yes or no?

If so, you were asked a loaded question. This common tactic is often used in debates or as a rhetorical tool in politics to trip people up in a way that causes them to falsely agree to an assumption that someone is making. 

While loaded questions are not always asked intentionally, it’s important to know how to spot them in order to prevent misunderstandings or misconceptions that can be implied from conversations that contain them.

In this article, we will define a loaded question fallacy and then look at 9 examples of when you could come across these questions in your daily life. After reading this article, you will be equipped with the knowledge to be “one up” on the next person who tries to trip you up by using a loaded question.

Let’s get started by looking at the definition of a loaded question.

Table of Contents

What Is a Loaded Question?

A loaded question is a type of logical fallacy in which the interrogator uses flawed logic to pose a question based on an implicit assumption. Often, especially in debates, the assumption being made is controversial or notably untrue. These questions are often inflammatory in nature, making them an effective way to derail an otherwise rational debate, as the recipient may be quick to become defensive.  

The defining factor of these questions is the implicit assumption about the respondent that is included in the question.

Loaded questions are controversial because they capitalize on the human weakness to immediately react to an emotional response without much consideration. When someone suggests that you believe or behave in a way that is not true, you’ll probably want to quickly correct them–especially if you feel like they’re being accusatory.

Loaded questions help people gain control by tricking others into implying something about themselves that isn’t true–and often unfavorable. We will look at how this can be used maliciously later on, but for now, let’s look at an example that you’re probably familiar with. 

Think of the last time you were on the receiving end of a relentless salesperson’s pitch. They may ask, “Do you want to pay with cash or credit?” This dichotomous question presumes that you’re planning to make a purchase, so if you answer it directly, you may find yourself to be the proud owner of a new mistake. 

It’s important to know a loaded question when you see one. Often used rhetorically, these questions aren’t intended to elicit a truthful answer. Rather, the interrogator is usually aiming to manipulate a response to gain control over the dialogue. 

In this article, we will look at 9 examples of loaded questions that will help you understand why they are problematic. We will also take a look at how you can properly respond to this type of question, and how you can avoid the fault of using them yourself.

Let’s get started by looking at some specific examples. 

9 Examples of Loaded Questions

1. “have you stopped mistreating your children”.

This example shows how loaded questions can be phrased in an accusatory way that pressures the person being asked to answer in a manner that confirms a harmful assumption. This question makes the presupposition that the person being questioned has, in fact, mistreated their children in the past, and it’s posed in a way that elicits two possible responses:

• No, I have not stopped mistreating my children.
• Yes, I used to mistreat my children, but have since stopped. 

No matter if the respondent chooses to say yes or no, he or she will look like they’re agreeing with the presupposition that child abuse had once occurred. And while this is being stated as a question to evoke information, it really implicates the other person to be a child abuser. Regardless of whether or not that’s true, listeners have now associated this person with cruelty toward children in some way.

Assuming that the respondent has never mistreated their children, their instinct could lead them to reply with either yes or no, which would ostensibly confirm their opponent’s accusation. Such a reply can be instinctual because of the dichotomous nature of the question, and because both answers can make sense if the person has never mistreated their children in the first place. One may intuitively reply “yes” in an attempt to say they aren’t mistreating their children , or “no” if they are trying to communicate they’ve never mistreated their children before. However, without further explanation, neither answer denies past abuse.

2. “Are you actually voting for this corrupt politician?”

This loaded question is worded in an attempt to force someone to agree with one’s own views that a politician is, in fact, corrupt. It suggests that the right answer is to say no, because if the respondent says yes, it means that they are inadvertently agreeing that the politician is corrupt, yet they’re still voting for the candidate. 

This is a manipulative attempt to limit the potential replies to only those that would serve the agenda of the person asking the question.

3. “How many mass shootings will it take until the government changes gun laws?”

While this question isn’t necessarily inflammatory toward the recipient, it makes a presupposition that making stricter gun laws is the solution to decreasing the number of mass shootings.  Whether or not this is the case, it is a claim that implies a firm truth that the person who is being asked may or may not agree with. 

However, when one hears a question such as this, they’ll instinctively try to answer it directly, which means the asker has successfully distracted the person from potentially rejecting the claim that gun laws are the primary or only cause of mass shootings. Even though using this tactic in this case is clever, it is still fallacious.

4. “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

This is a real-life example of a loaded question that was asked to Madeleine Albright in 1996 on CBS’s 60 Minutes . Although she later recanted her response, Albright initially fell into this question’s trap. The question posed was regarding the impacts of the United Nations’ sanctions against Iraq at the time.

Rather than questioning the unattributed claim that half a million children had died, or how much of this death toll was directly related to the sanctions, Albright replied by saying, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

Albright later made a statement, claiming she should have answered the question by pointing out the flaws in its premise and reframing it to be more representative of the facts.  She claimed she realized this as soon as she had spoken, and referred to her reply as being a terrible mistake , further noting that she, “had fallen into a trap and said something that [she] simply did not mean.”

This example shows how powerful loaded questions can be, both for the person who is on the receiving end and the audience listening.

5. “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around the steel to leave the conscience of this nation–the strength of this nation–unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?”

This is another real-life example of a loaded question that was posed to president Obama regarding issues occurring with Iran involving four Americans who were being held there against their will at that time.

The journalist posing this question made the presupposition that President Obama was, in fact, content with having citizens being held captive, making this a loaded question. 

In this case, Obama spotted the logical fallacy and pointed it out to the journalist. He then rephrased the question to be more accurate and answered his own version of the question, but not before scolding the journalist for trying to manipulate the interview.

6. “Have you always been an alcoholic?”

Like the others, this question attempts to limit the potential responses strictly to those that serve the questioner's agenda, which in this case is saying the other person is an alcoholic:

• Yes, I have always been an alcoholic.
• No, there was a time where I was not an alcoholic.

As you can see, regardless of whether the answer to the question is yes or no, it implicates that the person who is being asked is, in fact, an alcoholic. 

7. “Are you sure you want to hire an entitled millennial?” 

By answering this question directly, the person being asked is agreeing with the sweeping generalization that millennials feel entitled. Loaded questions are often used to exploit stereotypes such as this to influence the interlocutor's decisions. 

When trying to influence someone’s decision, asking a loaded question can prompt the other person to second guess themselves, especially if they’re unaware of a stereotype. What’s more, studies have found that we often take the opinions and responses of our peers into account when making our own decisions, even if we feel that our peers are mistaken. This means that people can be persuaded after being asked a loaded question if the person asking is a trusted friend. 

In this case, the question may modify a person’s decision to hire a particular candidate by associating them with laziness and a sense of entitlement simply due to his or her age. The question may also influence their decision because the loaded question is worded in a way that is clearly seeking “no” for a response, and people who are risk-averse wouldn’t want to take the chance of being blamed if the candidate they hired wasn’t ideal. 

8. “Can you just admit for once that you’re unwilling to see another person’s perspective?”

Think about the possible answers to this question:

• Yes, I admit I’m not willing to see another person’s perspective.
• No, I’m only willing to see my own perspective.  

Like the possible to answers to other loaded questions, both options implicate something damaging about the person who is being questioned that can hurt their reputation. And while the respondent is free to reject the premise of the question, it’s posed in a way that prompts them to answer it with a confirmation statement, even if this isn’t what they would typically do.

9. “Is Christianity the only true religion?”

A loaded question can only be considered to be as such if the implication being made (which, in this example, is that Christianity is true) is not a verified fact. Because not everyone agrees in the Christian faith, and “faith” by definition is backed by beliefs rather than facts, this question is loaded. 

Whether the respondent says yes or no, they’re agreeing that Christianity is true. And, if this question is asked to a non-Christian, they’re likely to take a defensive stance. 

Because of this, the setting is an important factor in this example. If this question is asked to a Christian pastor, it may be a genuine question, as the asker likely assumes the pastor believes in Christianity. However, this question becomes less innocent if it’s asked to a co-worker in the break room.

How to Respond to Loaded Questions

Because loaded questions are phrased in a way that attempts to make the recipient agree with something that they may dis agree with, if you find yourself on the receiving end of one, you need to know how to stand your ground. 

First, consider whether the person who asked the question understands what they just did and why it’s a problem. Doing this may impact how you choose to respond, depending on whether or not the question was posed in such a way on purpose or it was a genuine mistake.  

You may refuse to answer the question, however, you will still run the risk of losing credibility if you don’t handle the situation well because you may become associated with the issue at hand. 

So, rather than answering the question as it was asked, you have to challenge the assumption that was built into the question . For example, you could say something like, “Your question can’t be answered directly because it contains an incorrect assumption that I have any children.”

Or, you can ask the other person to rephrase the question in a way that “unloads” it. 

If you believe that doing this will make it appear to others that you’re trying to dodge the question, be prepared to explain the loaded question fallacy.

How to Avoid Asking Loaded Questions

Bias can inadvertently sneak up without us even realizing it. Everyone has their own opinions, and even if we try to avoid it, these can leak out in our conversations. 

To avoid asking loaded questions to other people, you have to be aware of your tendency to make assumptions that the other person may disagree with. If you need to, break your question down into a series of smaller questions to make sure the other person is on the same page. If they’re not, your follow up questions can be posed appropriately. 

Be aware of some commonly loaded words that are overcharged with emotion or words that imply some sort of bias and avoid using them. Also avoid speaking in absolutes and tone down any strong verbs and adjectives that can influence other people’s thoughts.

Learn About Other Logical Fallacies 

• 5 Appeal to Nature Fallacy Examples in Media and Life
• 6 Outcome Bias Examples That Can Negatively Impact Your Decisions
• 7 Self-Serving Bias Examples You See Throughout Life
• 7 Omission Bias Examples That Negatively Impact Your Life
• 6 Authority Bias Examples That Might Impact Your Decisions
• 5 Burden of Proof Fallacy Examples
• 5 Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Examples in Life
• 5 Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy Examples
• 7 False Cause Fallacy Examples
• 7 Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy Examples
• 7 Appeal to Common Sense Logical Fallacy Examples
• 5 Post Hoc Fallacy Examples (and How to Respond to This Argument)
• Gambler’s Fallacy: 5 Examples and How to Avoid It
• 5 Appeal to Anger Fallacy Examples Throughout Life
• 7 Halo Effect Bias Examples in Your Daily Life
• 7 Poisoning the Well Examples Throughout Your Life
• 7 Survivorship Bias Examples You See in the Real World
• 7 Dunning Kruger Effect Examples in Your Life
• 7 Either Or (“False Dilemma”) Fallacy Examples in Real Life
• 5 Cui Bono Fallacy Examples to Find Out “Who Will Benefit”
• 6 Anchoring Bias Examples That Impact Your Decisions
• 7 Virtue Signaling Examples in Everyday Life
• 7 Cherry Picking Fallacy Examples for When People Ignore Evidence
• 9 Circular Reasoning Examples (or “Begging the Question”) in Everyday Life
• 9 Appeal to Emotion Logical Fallacy Examples
• 9 Appeal to Pity Fallacy (“Ad Misericordiam”) Examples in Everyday Life
• 9 Confirmation Bias Fallacy Examples In Everyday Life
• 9 Bandwagon Fallacy Examples to Prevent Poor Decisions
• 5 Red Herring Fallacy Examples to Fight Irrelevant Information
• 9 Middle Ground Fallacy Examples to Spot During an Argument
• 5 False Equivalence Examples to Know Before Your Next Argument
• 7 Hasty Generalization Fallacy Examples & How to Respond to Them
• 6 Straw Man Fallacy Examples & How You Can Respond
• 6 False Dichotomy Examples & How to Counter Them
• 7 Slippery Slope Fallacy Examples (And How to Counter Them)
• What is the Planning Fallacy?
• How to Overcome the “Sunk Cost Fallacy” Mindset

Final Thoughts on Loaded Questions

Whether they’re asked by mistake or with the intention of incriminating someone in some way, loaded questions can be problematic in clear and truthful communication. Hopefully after reading this guide you feel confident in being able to spot loaded questions and comfortable with how you can respond if someone asks you one.

Finally, if you want a simple process to counter the logical fallacies and cognitive biases you encounter in life, then follow this 7-step process to develop the critical thinking skills habit .

Connie Mathers is a professional editor and freelance writer. She holds a Bachelor's Degree in Marketing and a Master’s Degree in Social Work. When she is not writing, Connie is either spending time with her daughter and two dogs, running, or working at her full-time job as a social worker in Richmond, VA.

Effectiviology

Loaded Questions: What They Are and How to Respond to Them

A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with. For example, the question “have you stopped mistreating your pet?” is a loaded question, because it presupposes that you have been mistreating your pet.

This type of fallacious question puts the person who is being questioned in a disadvantageous and defensive position, since the assumption in the question could reflect badly on them or pressure them to answer in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise.

Loaded questions are frequently used in various situations for rhetorical purposes, so it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about loaded questions, understand why they are problematic, and see how you can properly respond to them, as well as how you can avoid using them yourself.

Explanation of loaded questions

The issue with loaded questions is that they contain  an implicit or explicit assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with. Furthermore, loaded questions are often phrased in a way that pressures the person being questioned to reply in a way that confirms this problematic assumption , rather than in the way that they would normally prefer to reply.

To understand this concept better, consider the following example of a loaded question:

“Have you stopped mistreating your pet?”

This question is loaded due to its presupposition , which is the implicit background assumption that it contains, and namely the assumption that the person who is being questioned has been mistreating their pet. Accordingly, even though this statement is phrased as a question, which is meant to elicit information, it also implicitly provides information about the person who is being questioned.

In this case, the loaded question pushes the respondent to give a yes/no answer. However, regardless of which of these options the respondent chooses, they will appear to agree with the question’s underlying presupposition:

• If the respondent says “yes”, then they appear to confirm that they have mistreated their pet in the past, but have since stopped.
• If the respondent says “no”, then they appear to confirm that they have mistreated their pet in the past, and are still doing so in the present.

Essentially, even if the respondent has never engaged in such behavior, their intuition might cause them to reply with either “yes” or “no”, which would seemingly confirm the accusation against them (that they have been mistreating their pet).

These replies can be intuitive because they represent the type of answer that usually applies to this type of question, and because both replies can make sense if the respondent has never mistreated their pet in the first place. That is, someone might intuitively reply “yes” if they’re trying to convey the fact that they aren’t mistreating their pet, or “no” if they are trying to convey the fact that they have never mistreated their pet at all.

Note: loaded questions are sometimes referred to by other names, particularly when they’re viewed as a type of a logical fallacy . This includes, most notably, the loaded question fallacy , the complex question fallacy , the fallacy of many questions , the fallacy of presupposition , the interrogator’s fallacy , and plurium interrogationum .

Examples of loaded questions

Below are examples of loaded questions. They all presuppose something unverified, which the person being questioned might disagree with.

“Do you actually support this terrible politician?”

This loaded question presupposes the fact that the politician being discussed is terrible. Accordingly, if the respondent replies “yes”, because they do support that politician, then their answer will inadvertently suggest that they think that politician is terrible.

“Do you think that we should convict this criminal?”

This loaded question presupposes the fact that the person being discussed is a criminal. Accordingly, if the respondent believes that that person is innocent and replies “no”, in order to show that they don’t think a conviction is necessary, then their answer will inadvertently suggest that they believe that person is in fact a criminal.

“Are you one of those hateful people that doesn’t have any religious beliefs?”

This loaded question is framed so that if the respondent replies “yes”, because they don’t have any religious beliefs, then their answer will inadvertently suggest that they believe themself to be hateful.

“Have you accepted the fact that most scientific studies don’t support this theory?”

This loaded question presupposes the fact that most scientific studies don’t support the theory in question. If the respondent says “no”, because they believe that this is wrong, then their answer will inadvertently suggest that they agree with this presupposition, and that they simply refuse to accept it.

“Are you saying that you support the new law just to annoy me, or are you seriously stupid enough to believe that it’s a good idea?”

This loaded question is framed in a way that prompts the respondent to disagree with one of the two clauses that it contains, which inadvertently suggests that they agree with the other. Specifically, if the respondent says “no”, to show that they disagree with the idea that they support the law just because they are “stupid enough to believe in it”, then their answer implies that they support the law just to annoy the other person. The presupposition in this case is the fact that these are the only two reasons why they might be supporting the law.

“Are you naive enough to believe the mainstream media, or do you just not care about finding out the truth?”

This loaded question is similar to the previous one, since it is framed in a way that prompts the respondent to disagree with one of the two included clauses, which inadvertently suggests that they agree with the other one. Here again, the presupposition that makes this question loaded is the assumption that these are the only two reasons why a person might believe the mainstream media.

“Can you meet to discuss this tomorrow, or are you too busy slacking off?”

This loaded question also uses the double-clause technique we saw above. In this case, the loaded question is used to pressure the person being questioned into accepting a proposal, because if they simply reply “no” without expanding on their answer, then they will appear to inadvertently confirm the alternative explanation for their refusal, which is generally seen as negative.

Note that the examples that we saw so far mostly prompt the respondent to give a yes/no answer. However, loaded questions don’t necessarily have to fit this format. For example, consider the following loaded question:

“When did you stop stealing from your partner?”

Similarly to the loaded questions that prompt a yes/no answer, this type of open-ended loaded question presupposes something that the respondent is likely to disagree with.

However, these loaded questions are less common, since it’s less intuitive to answer them in a way that incriminates the respondent. This is because the answers that these questions prompt are more open-ended, which makes it easier for the respondent to reject the problematic presupposition.

Another example of such an open-ended loaded question is the following:

“Why is X so much better than Y?”

This question presupposes the fact that X is better than Y, in a way that pushes the respondent to agree.

“Why do you hate X?”

This open-ended question presupposes the fact that the person being asked the question hates X. As in the previous examples, while the respondent is technically free to reject this premise, the format of the question prompts them to answer it in a way that confirms it, even if this isn’t what they would normally choose to do.

Finally, note that although loaded questions appear in a variety of contexts, there are some situations where they are especially prevalent. For example, in gotcha journalism , loaded questions are frequently used by reporters, who interview people in a way that causes them to unintentionally make negative statements, that are damaging to their reputation or credibility.

Note : one of the most classic but crass examples of a loaded question is “have you stopped beating your wife?” or “when have you stopped beating your wife?”, which presupposes that the person being asked the question has been beating their wife.

How to respond to a loaded question

To respond to a loaded question in a way that negates it, you first need to recognize the fact that the question being asked is loaded. You can recognize this type of question, as we saw above, by noticing that the question presupposes something that is unreasonable to assume.

Once you recognize that you are being asked a loaded question, there are several ways you can respond:

• Reply in a way that rejects the presupposition. This involves either an explicit or an implicit rejection of the problematic presupposition, and your response will therefore be different than what the person asking the question is trying to get you to say. For example, if you’re asked “did you stop cheating on tests at schools?”, then instead of answering using a yes/no statement, you can reply by saying “I never cheated on any tests”.
• Point out the fallacious reasoning. To do this, you should explicitly point out the issue with the question being asked, by showing that it contains an inappropriate presupposition. Potentially, you can also use examples to illustrate the issues with this reasoning, for example by asking the other person a similar type of loaded question. You can follow up on this by also answering the question in a way that rejects the presupposition, as we saw above, or by asking the person who asked the question to justify their phrasing. For example, if you’re asked “when will you stop cheating on tests?” you can reply by saying “I’ve never cheated on any test, so why are you accusing me of this?”.
• Ignore the question or refuse to answer it.  In some cases, your best course of action is to explicitly refuse to answer the loaded question, or to ignore it entirely. However, note that in some cases, refusing to answer a question or ignoring it could reflect badly on you, for example by making it appear as if you support the problematic presupposition. As such, it can sometimes be better to first point out the fallacious reasoning in the question, and why you’re not answering it.

Finally, when countering loaded questions, a useful concept to keep in mind is Hanlon’s razor , which suggests that you should “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

Specifically, in this case Hanlon’s razor means that people sometimes ask loaded questions unintentionally, without realizing that they’re doing so, or without understanding the issues with what they’re doing. This is important, since it can help you understand people’s behavior better, and since it means that it’s sometimes better to reply to loaded questions in a way that doesn’t directly accuse the other person of using fallacious reasoning intentionally.

Overall, to reply to loaded questions effectively, you should first recognize that the question being asked is loaded, and consider whether the person asking the question is aware of this or not. Then, you can either reply in a way that rejects the problematic presupposition, point out the fallacious reasoning involved, or refuse to answer the question.

Giving a mu answer

A concept that is often mentioned in relation to loaded questions is that of mu  or mu answer .

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the original concept of mu has Japanese and Chinese origins, and plays an important role in Zen Buddhism, where it refers to “A state of voidness, nothingness, or detachment which is thought to transcend the concepts of negative and positive”.

The concept of mu is sometimes used to respond to loaded questions, and especially yes/no loaded questions, by rejecting the validity of the questions themselves. For example, if someone is asked a loaded question such as “have you stopped mistreating your pet?”, they may reply by saying “mu”, which means that they reject the premises of the question, since they have never mistreated their pet in the first place.

How to avoid asking loaded questions

It’s possible that you’re using loaded questions without being aware that you’re doing so. This is problematic, both because of the inherent fallaciousness of these questions, and because using these questions can hinder communication efforts and damage your relationships with others. Accordingly, you generally want to make sure to avoid asking loaded questions.

To do this, you must first recognize questions that are loaded, before you ask them, which you can achieve by considering whether your question presupposes something that your respondent might disagree with.

If you recognize that the question you’re about to ask is loaded, you can then modify it, to avoid the problematic presupposition. Specifically, this involves breaking apart the question into a series of related questions, with the goal of first confirming that your presupposition is true , before moving on to ask the main question that you are seeking the answer to.

For example, instead of asking the following loaded question:

“What made you stop watching TV all the time?”

You can first ask the following question, which confirms that your initial presupposition is true:

“Did you use to watch TV all the time?”

Then, if your respondent confirms this initial presupposition, you can move on to ask them about the second presupposition in the original question:

“Did you stop watching TV all the time?”

Finally, if the respondent confirms this second presupposition, you can move on to ask the main question that you are interested in:

Combining these questions together yields the following question:

“Did you use to watch TV all the time, and if so, then did you also stop watching watching TV all the time, and if so, then what made you stop watching TV all the time?

While this example doesn’t sound natural, and you generally wouldn’t use it directly in communication, it illustrates the underlying concept behind deconstructing your loaded questions to make them valid.

Overall, to avoid asking loaded questions, you should make sure to avoid assuming things in your question that the person being questioned might disagree with; if necessary, you can separate your original question into a series of questions, in order to confirm that the other person agrees with all of your assumptions. Doing this will help you avoid fallacious reasoning in your questions, and will improve your ability to communicate with others.

Loaded questions aren’t always fallacious

It’s important to note that loaded questions aren’t always considered fallacious . Rather, they are generally considered fallacious only if there is an issue with the presupposition that they contain. Accordingly, if the presupposition that a question contains is valid, meaning that all the people involved in the discussion agree with it , then the question is generally not considered fallacious.

For example, consider the following question:

“What movie do you want to watch tonight?”

This is a loaded question, in the sense that it presupposes that the person being asked the question wants to watch a movie with the person who is asking the question.

If the respondent likely isn’t interested in watching a movie, then the use of this question is considered fallacious, since it assumes that they do, and pressures them into replying in a way that confirms this assumption. However, in a situation where the person being questioned will clearly accept the presupposition, then the use of this question is generally not considered fallacious.

Overall, many questions that people use in everyday communication contain presuppositions that are seen as reasonable, and avoiding these presuppositions entirely is highly ineffective. As such, loaded questions aren’t generally seen as an issue, unless the presupposition that they contain is problematic in some way.

Other types of trick questions

In addition to loaded questions, there are other types of trick questions that people use.

For instance, suggestive questions (sometimes also referred to as leading questions ), are questions that are phrased in a way that suggests that a certain answer should be given in response.

An example of a suggestive question is the following:

“Don’t you agree that the evidence in this case is quite conclusive?”

This phrasing prompts the other person to respond in a confirmatory manner, even if they wouldn’t necessarily choose to respond this way otherwise. Conversely, a more neutral phrasing of this question, which won’t pressure the respondent, is the following:

“Do you think that the evidence in this case is conclusive?”

In addition, there are forced-choice questions , which are questions that are phrased in a way that pushes the person being questioned to respond using only a limited set of options. For example, such questions often force a yes/no response when a more elaborate reply is needed, or force a choice between two options in a false dichotomy when another option is available.

An example of a forced-choice question is the following:

“Do you support the actions of your favorite politician: yes or no?”

In this example, the question pushes the respondent to give an absolute yes/no answer, despite the fact that their preferred response might be that they support some of their favorite politician’s actions, but not others. Accordingly, a better-phrased version of this question would be:

“Do you support the actions of your favorite politician?”

Or alternatively:

“How do you feel about the actions of your favorite politician?”

However, note that similarly to loaded questions, these questions aren’t always fallacious.

For example, forced-choice questions can sometimes be employed in a reasonable manner during political discussions, in cases where the respondents are consistently using red herrings and equivocation in an attempt to avoid giving a direct answer. Similarly, such questions might sometimes be used in large-scale questionnaires, where it’s not viable to give people the option to answer in an open-ended manner.

In addition, when these questions are employed in such a manner, it’s sometimes possible to reduce the issues that are associated with them. For example, when it comes to forced-choice survey questions, it’s possible to give people a large range of available options, which makes it more likely that they will be able to express themselves properly. This can involve, for instance, adding a ‘partially agree’ answer to a question that previously had only ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ as options.

Summary and conclusions

• A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with.
• For example, the question “have you stopped mistreating your pet?” is a loaded question, because it presupposes that you have been mistreating your pet.
• To reply to a loaded question, you should first recognize that the question being asked is loaded, and then either reject the problematic presupposition, point out the fallacious reasoning involved, or refuse to answer the question.
• Before responding to a loaded question, you should consider whether the person who asked it understands what they’re doing and why it’s a problem, since this can affect the way you choose to respond.
• To avoid asking loaded questions yourself, you should avoid assuming things in your questions that the person being questioned might disagree with; if necessary, you can separate your original question into a series of questions, in order to confirm that the other person agrees with all of your assumptions.

Other articles you may find interesting:

• Snuck Premise: How to Handle Fallacious Presuppositions
• Logical Fallacies: What They Are and How to Counter Them
• Begging the Question (Petitio Principii): Fallacious Circular Reasoning

Think Critically, Live Honestly

Loaded Question / Statement / Argument

A loaded question or statement is a cunning conversational trap, subtly embedding an assumption that, regardless of your response, you're forced to accept, thereby tilting the dialogue in the favor of the questioner. It's a sly strategy that can shift the burden of proof onto you, often used to mislead, promote an agenda, or stifle open discussion, leading to potential misunderstandings.

• Language Nuance
• Manipulation

Definition of Loaded Question / Statement / Argument 

A Loaded Question / Statement / Argument is a logical fallacy that involves asking a question or making a statement that has an assumption built into it, so that it can't be answered or addressed without appearing to agree with the assumption. This type of fallacy is often used to trap an individual into agreeing with an implied proposition that was not explicitly stated. The question or statement is "loaded" with a presupposition that the respondent is forced to accept, regardless of their response, thereby skewing the conversation or debate in favor of the person posing the question or statement. It's a manipulative tactic that can subtly shift the burden of proof onto the respondent and is often used to create a misleading impression or to advance an agenda. This fallacy is problematic because it doesn't allow for a fair and open discussion, and it can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

In Depth Explanation

The loaded question, statement, or argument fallacy, often referred to as "begging the question," is a deceptive tactic used in reasoning and argumentation that subtly assumes the truth of a disputed premise within the question or statement itself. It's like a magician's trick, diverting your attention so you don't notice the sleight of hand. Imagine you're watching a debate, and one debater asks the other, "Have you stopped cheating in the game yet?" This question is loaded because it presumes the person has been cheating, which may not be true. If the person answers 'yes', it implies they were cheating before. If they answer 'no', it suggests they are still cheating. Either way, they are trapped into admitting something that hasn't been established. In the realm of abstract reasoning, this fallacy can be even more subtle. Consider a statement like, "Since all actions are selfish, altruism does not exist." Here, the loaded premise is "all actions are selfish," a claim that is far from universally accepted. Yet, it is presented as an established fact, and the conclusion (altruism does not exist) is drawn from it. The argument is circular, as it uses its conclusion as one of its premises. The loaded question or statement fallacy can significantly impact rational discourse by derailing the conversation, leading it away from objective analysis and into the realm of unfounded assumptions. It can create confusion, provoke emotional responses, and even manipulate people into accepting claims they might otherwise question. Understanding this fallacy is crucial for critical thinking. It allows us to recognize when a question or statement is unfairly framed, and to challenge the hidden assumptions within it. By doing so, we can steer the conversation back to a more rational and fair discussion, where claims are scrutinized, evidence is evaluated, and conclusions are drawn based on sound reasoning. In essence, the loaded question or statement fallacy is a wolf in sheep's clothing, hiding a contentious claim within an innocent-looking question or statement. By learning to spot this fallacy, we can avoid being led astray by its deceptive tactics, and engage in more honest and productive discourse.

Real World Examples

1. Job Interview Scenario: During a job interview, the interviewer asks, "So, when did you stop being lazy and decide to get serious about your career?" This is a loaded question because it assumes that the interviewee was once lazy and not serious about their career. The question is designed in such a way that any answer would imply the interviewee's acceptance of the underlying assumption, which may not be true. 2. Political Debate: A classic example of a loaded statement can be found in political debates. For instance, a politician might say, "My opponent supports policies that will lead to economic disaster and social chaos." This statement is loaded because it assumes that the opponent's policies will indeed lead to disaster and chaos, without providing any evidence or argument to support this claim. The audience is manipulated into accepting these assumptions without questioning their validity. 3. Media Reporting: A news anchor might say, "Today, thousands of protesters took to the streets, causing chaos and disrupting the peace of the city." This is a loaded statement because it assumes that the protesters are the cause of the chaos and disruption, without considering other factors such as police response, counter-protesters, or underlying social issues. The statement is designed to create a negative perception of the protesters, influencing the audience's opinion without providing a balanced view of the situation.

Countermeasures

Addressing a loaded question or statement requires a strategic approach that involves identifying the underlying assumptions, reframing the question, and requesting clarification. 1. Identify the Underlying Assumptions: The first step in countering a loaded question or statement is to identify the assumptions embedded within it. This requires critical thinking skills and an understanding of the context. Once the assumptions are identified, they can be addressed directly. 2. Reframe the Question: Another effective countermeasure is to reframe the loaded question or statement. This involves restating the question or statement in a neutral way that removes the bias or assumption. By doing this, you can shift the conversation back to a more objective and balanced discussion. 3. Request Clarification: If a question or statement seems loaded, asking for clarification can be a useful strategy. This can be done by saying something like, "I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Can you please clarify?" This puts the onus back on the person who posed the question to explain what they mean, potentially exposing any hidden assumptions or biases. 4. Address the Issue Directly: If a loaded question or statement is particularly egregious, it may be necessary to address it directly. This could involve stating that the question or statement is loaded and explaining why, or it could involve challenging the person who posed the question to justify their assumptions. 5. Use Facts and Evidence: Loaded questions and statements often rely on emotion rather than facts. Therefore, using facts and evidence to counter these can be very effective. This requires having a good understanding of the topic at hand and being able to present your arguments in a clear and logical manner. 6. Stay Calm and Respectful: It's important to remain calm and respectful when dealing with loaded questions or statements. Getting defensive or angry will only escalate the situation and make it more difficult to have a productive conversation. Instead, try to maintain a calm and rational demeanor, and treat the other person with respect, even if you disagree with them.

Thought Provoking Questions

1. Can you recall a time when you were asked a loaded question that forced you to accept an assumption, regardless of your response? How did this affect the conversation or debate? 2. Have you ever used a loaded statement or argument to subtly shift the burden of proof onto someone else? If so, how did it impact the discussion and the relationship with the person involved? 3. Can you identify a situation where you might have unintentionally used a loaded question or statement, thereby skewing the conversation in your favor? How could you have approached the situation differently to allow for a fair and open discussion? 4. How can recognizing and avoiding the use of loaded questions or statements in your communication help you to reduce misunderstandings or misinterpretations, and improve your relationships with others?

Weekly Newsletter

Gain insights and clarity each week as we explore logical fallacies in our world. Sharpen your critical thinking and stay ahead in a world of misinformation. Sign up today!

Loaded Question

The loaded question arises by asking a question that presupposes a claim so that it cannot be answered to without sounding guilty.

Example of Loaded Question

• "Marijuana has mind-numbing elements that affect your memory so how can you say you have never had marijuana if you can't remember? Now exactly how much pot did you smoke?" The inability to remember could be caused by variety of other things instead of smoking marijuana.
• "Do you think the President should be impeached for colluding with foreign powers?" Whether the respondant says 'yes' or 'no' the question establishes the 'fact' that the President colluded with foreign powers. The only question that remains is whether he should be impeached.

Books About Logical Fallacies

A few books to help you get a real handle on logical fallacies.

Loaded Question Extended Explanation

The Loaded Question fallacy is a logical fallacy in which a question is asked which contains an assumption that the person being asked the question is already in agreement with. This type of logical fallacy is often used in debates or conversations to try to illicit a certain answer or opinion from the person being asked the question without providing any factual evidence to support the assumption being made. It is often used as a form of manipulation to shift the focus of the conversation away from the facts and onto the opinion of the person being asked the question.

An example of the Loaded Question fallacy would be: “Do you think that it is wrong to steal?” The assumption being made in this question is that the person being asked the question already believes that stealing is wrong. The question does not allow for any other opinion to be expressed as it presupposes that the person being asked the question already has an opinion on the matter. The use of this type of logical fallacy does not allow for a meaningful debate to be had as it does not allow for any other opinion to be expressed and it does not provide any facts or evidence to support the assumption being made.

The Loaded Question fallacy is often used in debates and conversations to try to shift the focus away from the facts and onto the opinion of the person being asked the question. It is a form of manipulation which is used to try to get the person being asked the question to agree with a certain opinion without providing any evidence to support the assumption being made. This type of logical fallacy can be avoided by asking questions which do not contain any assumptions and which allow for all opinions to be expressed and discussed in a meaningful manner.

Sgt Scholar

Warrior ethos, quasi-witty pathos, almost scholarly logos

Loaded question

Other names:

AKA: plurium interrogationum,  trick question, complex question

Definition:

Questions that are worded so that a direct answer implies they agree with an assumption that is explicitly stated or implied. The question often contains loaded terms, and the presupposed point is often one that the person would not usually agree with due to negative implications. However, questions with a positive/nice/good presupposed point could technically be loaded questions.

This excludes points that are common knowledge or well-supported.

Rich Burns: I wasn’t even at the scene.

Prosecutor Jack Hoff: Why did you start the fire?!

Mr Hoff did not first demonstrate Rich started the fire. So even if Rich did start the fire, Mr. Hoff’s question is loaded because it asserts a presupposition.

Gal A. Xi: I hope NASA’s budget gets a boost.

Don Key: Should we be wasting money on space exploration right now?

Don presumes that space exploration is a waste of money. It is a loaded question because he did not first clarify what he believes constitutes “wasteful” and how space exploration qualifies. Does the cost outweigh the benefit to such a degree that we should agree it is wasteful? All space exploration, or some aspect? We don’t know; the statement was pretty vague. Regardless, if Gal answers with a direct yes or no, she would be tactically agreeing that space exploration is a waste.

Bea Nice: May I offer you a drink?

Annita Bier: Thank you. Is it exhausting being so charming all the time?

It seems Annita’s question was a polite compliment more than an attempt to “trap” Bea. I am using it to show that loaded questions can have positive connotations, not because we should quibble over the details of light conversation. If one is pedantic (pedandick?) enough, they could try to asses how strong Annita’s assumptions are, the difference between the literal and colloquial use of “all the time,” what constitutes charming, etc… However, the question was undoubtedly rhetorical and such a deep dive misses the primary purpose: polite conversation. Assessing how logically and factually coherent this is would be committing trivial objections, aka logic chopping, bike shedding, splitting hairs, etc. I might make a blog about this fallacy/tactic later, but for now, you can visit Logically Fallacious for the broad strokes and Effectiviolgy for a deeper dive into why some people do this.

May Dae: Oh man, did you hear about the latest mass shooting?

Khan S. Peerasi: Do you honestly still believe the mainstream media?

Here, the implied assumption is that the mainstream media are lying (there was no mass shooting) or they are so untrustworthy that believing reports like this is naive. Quips like this are often used by people who overly invest in conspiracy speculation (this is different from merely questioning the motives of those with influential power). This is an appeal to conspiracy theory, but I prefer the term conspiracy speculation. (See the link for more on this fallacious appeal). If May answers with a direct yes or no, she would tacitly agree with Khan’s assumption.

Dr. Wellinuff: With exceptions for people with certain conditions, vaccines substantially reduce the chances of getting seriously ill from some diseases and spreading them.

Andy Vagser: How long have you been a Big Pharma shill?

Andy assumes that promoting the safety and efficacy of vaccines makes Dr. Wellinuff a corrupt shill. Like the previous example, it implicitly suggests there is a conspiracy of sorts.

Cam Payne You can either vote for me and support policies that will get this nation back on track, or you can vote for my corrupt opponent, who will continue to steal your hard-earned money. Do you want to do the right thing?

Mr. Payne combined a loaded question with vague language and an excluded middle fallacy (specifically false choice). Though subjective and vague, Mr. Payne didn’t clarify what counts as “getting this nation back on track” and that his policies would achieve this. Further, without adequate evidence, he presupposes his opponent is corrupt, has stolen the audience’s money, and will continue to steal that money. (Technically, he presupposes the audience works hard for their money, but this is not really the issue at hand). A direct yes or no to the question would tacitly agree with Mr. Payne’s claims. Lastly, the question is presented in tandem with an excluded middle fallacy (specifically false choice). One could not vote or (depending on the scenario) vote for a different candidate.

Nonexample:

Officer Daryl Rhea: In this surveillance video, we see you shot the sheriff. Why did you shoot the sheriff, and did you shoot the deputy? 

Here, the first question is not an unsupported assumption since the evidence is provided, and the second question about shooting the deputy is not inescapable; if the person didn’t do it, they could honestly answer no.

Bill Ding: Who is the current President of the US?

Technically, the question alleges there is a US and that it has a president, and doesn’t provide supporting evidence for these details. However, we can safely consider these facts as common knowledge. Generally, we are not expected to support such common knowledge facts because it would substantially slow conversation, making dialogue impractical. So, questions like this are not loaded questions.

Tips for avoiding this and for improving dialogue

Avoid personal assumptions. Instead of making assumptions, you can ask questions to get you both on the same page. For example, “Do you still plan on voting for that candidate?” assumes they are planning on voting for that candidate. Instead, you can ask, “If you are voting, do you plan on voting for this candidate,” or the more open-ended question, “If you are voting, who do you plan on voting for?”

Avoid vague and loaded language. “Do you plan on voting for that horrible candidate?” The term “horrible” is vague and loaded. You may have good reason to view the candidate in such a way, but the other person may not share this understanding. Leaving that out that term would avoid making a loaded question.

Avoid unsupported claims. Try to back up every claim when feasible. For example, “Do you plan on voting for that vote-forging candidate” asserts that the candidate is corrupt without any evidence. Of course, cheating is a bit of a loaded term and vague. We could support the claim and rephrase with something like, “I read here that Candidate X was caught forging votes. Do you plan on voting for them?” However, this comes with some problems, which are discussed below.

Use questions that open healthy dialogue. The rephrasing above is better, but given the heated nature of politics, that opening could lead to an awkward conversation. Instead, a more open-ended question may be a healthier way to invite conversation. For example, “I read here that Candidate X was caught forging votes. What do you think about that?”

Tips for how to respond:

Answer the truth, not the trap. Whether by accident or design, if someone asks you a loaded question, you can respond accurately instead. Oftentimes, it may be prudent to use Hanlon’s Razor, which loosely states that it is generally wiser to not attribute malice to someone’s actions when it can be adequately explained by an honest mistake, ignorance, etc. Suppose someone asks you, “Do you plan on voting for that horrible candidate?” The person may be trying to manipulate you into voting for someone else. But they could be trying to vent, and it came out poorly. You could respond with, “That candidate does have some flaws, but I think their plans on policies X, Y, and Z are excellent solutions. So, I wouldn’t consider him/her horrible.”

However, if the accusation is exceptionally rude or bizarre, you may be able to use humor to show how rude the insulting accusation was while getting a laugh from other audience members. Let’s build on the vaccine example from earlier.

Dr. Wellinuff: Zero, and it is frustrating. Despite all the germs I murdered, the secret council still hasn’t accepted my application for entry-level Shill, and HR won’t return any of my calls.

Ask for clarification: Ask them to clarify their terms and support the assumption. If possible, you can start with common ground to help get the dialogue back on track. We saw this with the first tip (“That candidate does have some flaws”), but let’s see this in action by building on the NASA example.

Don Key: Should we be wasting money on space exploration right now ?

Gal A. Xi: I am interested in fixing our nation’s budget issues as well. To be honest, I consider space exploration a worthy investment, but I will genuinely listen. Can you first clarify how you think it is wasting money?

Address the unfairness. Point out that the question is making an assumption and that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. Let’s use this in the arson example.

Rich Burns: Respectfully, sir; I am sure you can imagine how being wrongfully accused can be frustrating, so please forgive me if this comes off wrong, but you are the one who possesses the burden of proof.

Ignore; refuse to answer. This is usually an option. However, if this is a justice issue, you have the right to remain silent (in the US). That may be a viable option if you are confident you can safely answer the questions. But there are reasons why this right exists. After all, you may be too stressed to clearly explain your side, increasing the odds the investigators may misunderstand or twist your words. Also, there is a chance the police may coerce you into a false confession. The justice system is far from perfect, so carefully weigh your options.

Be sure to like and share!

Did you love it and want to help support Sgt Scholar? Check out the Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/sgtscholar

Share this:

• Pingback: Fallacy / unfair tactic quick guide – Sgt Scholar

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

The Leading Source of Insights On Business Model Strategy & Tech Business Models

Complex Question Fallacy

The complex question fallacy, also known as the loaded question or presupposition fallacy, occurs when a question is asked in a way that assumes a particular answer or implies a false or contentious premise within the question itself. It traps the respondent into accepting the presupposition or addressing the assumption without explicitly stating it.

Table of Contents

Characteristics of Complex Questions:

• Complex questions contain multiple assumptions or presuppositions embedded within the wording of the question itself.
• These assumptions may go unnoticed by the respondent, leading them to inadvertently accept or affirm premises they may not agree with.
• Complex questions may carry implicit connotations, insinuations, or implications that shape the respondent’s understanding or interpretation of the question.
• By framing the question in a particular way, the questioner influences the respondent’s perception and response.
• Complex questions often use emotionally charged or loaded language that influences the respondent’s emotional state or biases their judgment.
• Loaded language may trigger a defensive or reactive response from the respondent, making it challenging to provide a clear and unbiased answer.

Examples of Complex Questions:

• “Have you stopped cheating on exams yet?” – This question presupposes that the respondent was cheating on exams, regardless of whether or not it is true.
• “When did you stop beating your spouse?” – This question assumes that the respondent was previously beating their spouse, without offering the option of denying the premise.
• “Why do you always cause trouble in the workplace?” – This question assumes that the respondent consistently causes trouble, without providing evidence or allowing for an alternative perspective.
• “How much did you pay to influence the outcome of the election?” – This question presupposes that the respondent engaged in corrupt behavior during the election, without offering a neutral alternative.
• “Don’t you agree that our company’s policies are too strict?” – This question assumes that the company’s policies are overly strict, without considering alternative viewpoints or reasons for the policies.
• “Why do you support the dangerous practices of your political party?” – This question frames the respondent’s political affiliation as inherently dangerous, without acknowledging potential benefits or differing perspectives.

Implications of Complex Questions:

• Respondents may feel pressured to provide answers that align with the assumptions or biases embedded in the question, leading to inaccurate or misleading responses.
• The complexity of the question may obscure the true intentions of the questioner and prevent a genuine exchange of ideas or information.
• Complex questions can be used as manipulative tactics to manipulate or control the narrative, influence public opinion, or discredit opposing viewpoints.
• By framing the question in a particular way, the questioner may seek to sway the respondent’s opinion or undermine their credibility.
• Continual exposure to complex questions can erode trust in communication and dialogue, leading to skepticism, cynicism, or disengagement from meaningful discourse.
• Respondents may become wary of answering questions honestly or openly, fearing that their responses will be misinterpreted or used against them.

Mitigating the Complex Question Fallacy:

• Encourage individuals to develop critical thinking skills and question assumptions, biases, and hidden premises embedded in complex questions.
• Teach techniques for identifying loaded language, presuppositions, and manipulative tactics in communication.
• Strive for clarity and precision in communication by asking direct, straightforward questions that do not contain implicit assumptions or biases.
• Clarify any ambiguous or misleading elements in the question to ensure a clear understanding of the intended inquiry.
• Practice empathetic listening and open-mindedness when engaging in dialogue, seeking to understand the perspective of the respondent without prejudging or imposing assumptions.
• Validate the respondent’s feelings and concerns, even if they differ from one’s own, to foster trust and mutual respect in communication.

Conclusion:

The complex question fallacy poses challenges to effective communication and dialogue by embedding assumptions, biases, and loaded language within interrogations, making it difficult for respondents to provide genuine or accurate responses. By raising awareness of the characteristics and implications of complex questions, individuals can cultivate critical thinking skills, promote clarity and precision in communication, and foster empathetic listening to mitigate the influence of manipulative tactics and biases in dialogue. By encouraging open, honest, and respectful communication practices, societies can create spaces for meaningful discourse, collaboration, and understanding that transcend the limitations of the complex question fallacy and promote mutual respect, empathy, and trust among individuals and communities.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

Critical Thinking

Second-Order Thinking

Lateral Thinking

Bounded Rationality

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Occam’s Razor

Lindy Effect

Antifragility

Systems Thinking

Vertical Thinking

Metaphorical Thinking

Maslow’s Hammer

Peter Principle

Straw Man Fallacy

Google Effect

Streisand Effect

Compromise Effect

Butterfly Effect

IKEA Effect

Ringelmann Effect 

The Overview Effect

House Money Effect

Recognition Heuristic

Representativeness Heuristic

Take-The-Best Heuristic

Bundling Bias

Barnum Effect

Anchoring Effect

Decoy Effect

Commitment Bias

First-Principles Thinking

Ladder Of Inference

Goodhart’s Law

Six Thinking Hats Model

Mandela Effect

Crowding-Out Effect

Bandwagon Effect

Moore’s Law

Disruptive Innovation

Value Migration

Bye-Now Effect

Stereotyping

Murphy’s Law

Law of Unintended Consequences

Fundamental Attribution Error

Outcome Bias

Hindsight Bias

Read Next:  Biases ,  Bounded Rationality ,  Mandela Effect ,  Dunning-Kruger Effect ,  Lindy Effect ,  Crowding Out Effect ,  Bandwagon Effect .

Main Guides:

• Business Models
• Business Strategy
• Marketing Strategy
• Business Model Innovation
• Platform Business Models
• Network Effects In A Nutshell
• Digital Business Models

More Resources

About The Author

Gennaro Cuofano

Discover more from fourweekmba.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Have a language expert improve your writing

Check your paper for plagiarism in 10 minutes, generate your apa citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Begging the Question Fallacy | Definition & Examples

Begging the Question Fallacy | Definition & Examples

Published on May 31, 2023 by Kassiani Nikolopoulou . Revised on August 21, 2023.

Begging the question fallacy is an argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It is an attempt to prove something is true while simultaneously taking that same thing for granted. This line of reasoning is fallacious because the assumption is not justified by any evidence.

In the example above, the conclusion (the belief in God is universal) validly follows from the premise (everyone believes in God), but only because the conclusion is simply a rewording of the premise. Here, we assume in the premise what we supposedly prove in the conclusion. This is a faulty line of reasoning, because you cannot assume what you are trying to prove.

Table of contents

What is begging the question fallacy, what does begging the question mean, why is begging the question fallacy a problem, begging the question fallacy examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about the begging the question fallacy.

Begging the question fallacy occurs when we use the claim we are trying to prove as a premise in order to prove the very same claim. In other words, we assume that a premise is true in order to justify an argument. Begging the question fallacy is also known as petitio principii (Latin for “assuming the original point”) or “chicken and the egg argument” and is generally considered a form of circular reasoning .

Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy . It is a logically valid but trivial argument in that it fails to prove anything beyond what is already assumed.

Because the same idea is repeated in the premise and the conclusion, arguments that beg the question can be persuasive and obscure the fact that a debatable claim is being presented as truth.

In informal, everyday use, the phrase “begging the question” is used in a very different sense, indicating an important question that has not been addressed yet and should be part of the discussion. For example, in an interview , an answer may lead to a follow-up question that the interviewer introduces by saying “This begs the question …” instead of “This raises the question …”

However, the formal meaning of begging the question is assuming the conclusion. Since the general understanding of “beg” is “ask,” people have reinterpreted the phrase beg the question as meaning “raise a question.”

In a good argument, the premises are plausible—that is, we are presented with sufficient evidence to believe the premises are true. There is also a logical connection between the assumptions presented in the premises and the final conclusion.

In begging the question fallacy, there is no independent evidence to support the premises; rather, the conclusion is used to support the premises and vice versa . This means that the parts of our argument depend on each other, forming a circle: our argument simply repeats itself and doesn’t prove anything. This is a problem because a good argument requires evidence that is not the argument itself.

Begging the question can be easy to spot in its simplest form, where the same idea is repeated almost word for word, but people often use more subtle ways.

Even so, arguments that beg the question can be persuasive when the audience is unaware of the fallacy or when it already shares the speaker’s viewpoint—what is known as confirmation bias .

“You’re overlooking the fact that abortion is murder. We should have laws against murder, and so we should have laws against abortion.”

The interviewee’s argument is:

Premise 1: Abortion is murder

Premise 2: We should have laws against murder

Conclusion: Therefore, we should have laws against abortion.

No one would disagree that laws against murder are necessary, but the real issue here is whether abortion is wrong in a way that would justify having laws against it. So the first premise is begging the question, because there is no evidence provided to justify the claim. It only assumes that abortion is murder.

However, regardless of one’s own convictions, there is a difference between believing something is true and being able to justify it. In other words, there is a difference between the position itself and the arguments for that position. Being unaware of this distinction causes people to fall for begging the question fallacy.

If you want to know more about fallacies , research bias , or AI tools , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• Sunk cost fallacy
• Genetic fallacy
• Appeal to emotion fallacy
• False dilemma
• Pathetic fallacy
• Non sequitur fallacy
• Ad populum fallacy

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Framing bias
• Cognitive bias
• Optimism bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Affect heuristic

Although many sources use circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question interchangeably, others point out that there is a subtle difference between the two:

• Begging the question fallacy occurs when you assume that an argument is true in order to justify a conclusion. If something begs the question, what you are actually asking is, “Is the premise of that argument actually true?” For example, the statement “Snakes make great pets. That’s why we should get a snake” begs the question “Are snakes really great pets?”
• Circular reasoning fallacy , on the other hand, occurs when the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself.  For example, “People have free will because they can choose what to do.”

In other words, we could say begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

The complex question fallacy and begging the question fallacy are similar in that they are both based on assumptions. However, there is a difference between them:

• A complex question fallacy occurs when someone asks a question that presupposes the answer to another question that has not been established or accepted by the other person. For example, asking someone “Have you stopped cheating on tests?”, unless it has previously been established that the person is indeed cheating on tests, is a fallacy.
• Begging the question fallacy occurs when we assume the very thing as a premise that we’re trying to prove in our conclusion. In other words, the conclusion is used to support the premises, and the premises prove the validity of the conclusion. For example: “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.”

In other words, begging the question is about drawing a conclusion based on an assumption, while a complex question involves asking a question that presupposes the answer to a prior question.

Begging the question fallacy is an argument in which you assume what you are trying to prove. In other words, your position and the justification of that position are the same, only slightly rephrased.

For example: “All freshmen should attend college orientation, because all college students should go to such an orientation.”

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, August 21). Begging the Question Fallacy | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/begging-the-question-fallacy/

Rivera, H. (2018). Begging the question. In R. Arp, S. Barbone, & M. Bruce (Eds.), Bad arguments . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119165811.ch70

Is this article helpful?

Kassiani Nikolopoulou

Other students also liked, circular reasoning fallacy | definition & examples, equivocation fallacy | definition & examples, false dilemma fallacy | examples & definition, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Pursuing Truth: A Guide to Critical Thinking

Chapter 9 informal fallacies.

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. A formal fallacy is a fallacy that can be identified merely by examining the argument’s form or using a tool like a truth table. An informal fallacy cannot be detected from the argument’s form. There are no foolproof tools for detecting informal fallacies. Unlike validity, these fallacies can occur in degrees. Sometimes, it is clear that a fallacy has been committed, at other times, there can be legitimate questions about whether a fallacy has been committed.

9.1 Emotions and Critical Thinking

There are two important uses of language that play an important role in critical thinking. The first is to convey information, or what is sometimes called cognitive content. The premises and the conclusion of an argument all have cognitive content. It is on the basis of the information they convey that we can evaluate them as true or false. Another use of language, however, is to express emotion, which often tends to evoke similar feelings in the audience. The emotions that are expressed by the language is its emotive content.

Good critical thinkers are persuaded by relevant cognitive content, and are not unduly persuaded by irrelevant emotive content.

9.2 Slanters

Slanters are words or phrases that are used to manipulate by using emotive language. Slanters can have both positive and negative connotations. Slanters are types of non-argumentative persuasion. Sometimes, people will use them innocently, maybe because they have passionate feelings about the subject being discussed. Other time, though, they are used because the speaker knows that he does not have a good argument for his position. They are ways for people to affect the beliefs of others without offering reasons for their positions.

9.2.1 Euphemisms and Dysphemisms

Different words and phrases passages can have the same cognitive content but differ in their emotive content. A euphemism is a positive synonym for some neutral term. A dysphemism is a negative synonym. For example, think of the words that we use to talk about the death of a pet:

• Neutral: euthanize
• Euphemism: put to sleep
• Dysphemism: ?

Euphemisms are common in the military and in advertising. Here are some examples:

• Enhanced interrogation methods
• Collateral damage
• Depopulated area
• Pre-owned, Pre-loved
• Genuine imitation leather

In other cases, a person may use a euphemism when they have been caught doing something wrong, but want to minimize the wrongness of the action. I heard a politician once, who was caught telling a falsehood, admit to having “committed terminological inexactitude.”

Dysphemisms convey a negative attitude towards something. Examples of dysphemisms include:

• Cancer stick
• Dead tree edition

9.2.2 Innuendoes

Innuendoes imply something by what is not said. A common scene in crime films has a gangster go into a store and say something like “Nice store you got. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.” Notice that he didn’t actually say he would damage the store, although he certainly implied it.

Another use of an innuendo is to condemn with faint praise. Imagine receiving a reference letter for a student applying to graduate school. The letter only says that the student was never late to class. The implication is that her punctuality is the best that can be said of her.

Finally, there is the apophasis, which is mentioning something by saying that it won’t be mentioned. For example, “I’m not going to talk about your failure to turn assignments in on time.”

9.2.3 Weaselers

A weaseler is a way of qualifying a claim in order to avoid criticism. Weaselers include words and phrases like “perhaps,” “there’s a good chance that,” and “it’s possible that.” A weaseler that is common in advertising is “up to” — “By using our diet plan, you can lose up to ten pounds in a month.” Notice that “up to ten pounds” means “no more than ten pounds.” So, if a customer loses no weight at all, then there is no grounds for a lawsuit.

9.2.4 Downplayers

A downplayer is a way of making something seem less important than it is. The most common downplayers are “mere, merely, and so-called.” A person might say, “That’s merely your opinion” to avoid having to respond with facts. A politician might talk about his opponent’s “so-called” plan to cut spending, implying that it isn’t much of a plan at all. Improper use of quotation marks can also serve as a downplayer.

9.2.5 Proof surrogate

A proof surrogate offers no real support, but just claims that support exists. Examples are using “studies show” without saying what those studies are and where they can be found. Another proof surrogate is just to say that “It’s obvious that….” Doing so implies that proof is simply not needed.

9.2.6 Hyperbole

Hyperbole is an inappropriate or extreme exaggeration. “Taking critical thinking is the most exciting thing you’ll do in your whole life!” Since it is an extreme exaggeration, no one will be fooled into believing it, so what’s the danger? The danger of hyperbole is that once the exaggeration is made, the listener is then prepared to accept a weaker version of the statement. The weaker version, compared to the extreme exaggeration, sounds more believable.

9.3 Fallacies of Ambiguity and Vagueness

An ambiguous word or phrase is one that has more than one meaning. “Bank” is an ambiguous term, it can refer to a financial institution, a riverbank, a kind of basketball or pool shot, etc. A vague term is one that does not have a precise meaning. That is, there will be cases where a vague term clearly applies, cases in which it clearly does not apply, and cases in the middle where it’s just not clear whether it applies. Terms like “rich” and “heap” are vague terms.

9.3.1 Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation is committed by using the same term in two different senses in the same argument. Here is my favorite example:

• God is love.
• Love is blind
• Ray Charles is blind.
• Ray Charles is God.

There are several things wrong with this argument, one of them is equivocating on “blind.” To say that love is blind, is to say that people overlooks the faults of those they love. To say that Ray Charles is blind is to say that he cannot physically see anything, not that he just overlooks things.

9.3.2 Amphiboly

Amphibolies rely on syntactic ambiguities. Those are ambiguities that result from the arrangement of the words. Church bulletin bloopers are good places to find amphibolies: “The Rev. Adams spoke briefly, much to the delight of his audience.”

9.3.3 Accent

The fallacy of accent is an equivocation resulting from accenting different words in a sentence. Think about the different meanings that are implied from accenting different words in this sentence: “I didn’t take the exam yesterday.”

9.3.4 Division and Composition

The last two fallacies of ambiguity are division and composition. The fallacy of division improperly attributes a property of the whole to its parts. The fallacy of division improperly attributes a property of the parts to the whole. Here is an example of division: “That wall weighs more than 500 pounds, so each brick in it weighs more than 500 pounds.” A similar example of composition is “Each brick in that wall weighs less than a pound, so the entire wall weighs less than a pound.”

Some properties, however, can be attributed from the parts to the whole or the whole to the parts. For example, “Each link in that chain is solid gold, so the whole chain is solid gold.”

9.3.5 Line-Drawing Fallacy

The line-drawing fallacy is a fallacy of vagueness, having the form “Since there is no precise line that can be drawnd between A and not-A, there is no real difference between A and not-A.” Example: “Since no one can say where the line should be drawn between legitimate uses of force and excessive uses of force, then no one can honestly claim that any use of force is excessive.”

9.4 Fallacies of Relevance

A good critical thinker will offer arguments that have premises that are logically relevant to their conclusions. A fallacy of relevance is committed when the premises of the argument are not logically relevant to the truth of the conclusion. They may be, however, psychologically relevant, so that we can be deceived in thinking that the argument is valid, when in fact it is not.

9.4.1 Ad Hominem

The Ad Hominem fallacy is committed by attacking the person giving the argument, rather than responding to the argument itself. There are four common types:

9.4.1.1 Personal Attack

This is also known as an ad hominem abusive. This is committed when one verbally attacks the person giving the argument instead of responding to the argument itself. For example:

Jack: “There are so many unexplored planets out there. Surely, there must be life somewhere out there”

Jill: “You can’t be right, you’re just a loser who watches too much television.”

9.4.1.2 Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A person commits the circumstantial ad hominem by referring to circumstances that discredit the arguer. This is often a charge of bias or vested interest. A person has a vested interest when they stand to gain, financially or otherwise, by something. For example, a doctor has a vested interest in a pharmaceutical study when she owns stock in the company that produces the drug. Bias or vested interest is a good reason to examine an argument carefully, but not a good reason to simply dismiss it.

Jill: John has made an excellent case for increasing the budget of the church’s youth program.

Jack: Of course he would say that — he’s the youth minister! You can just forget everything he said.

9.4.1.3 Tu Quoque

This is also known as a pseudorefutation. It accuses the arguer of hypocrisy. Example: “Don’t tell me I shouldn’t start smoking. I know how many packs a day you inhale!”

A person’s behavior may very well be inconsistent with their argument, but that doesn’t mean that the argument is bad.

9.4.1.4 Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the well is an ad hominem committed before the arguer has spoken. The goal is to provide harmful information about the speaker to preemptively discredit anything that the speaker might say. Any of the previous examples can be turned into examples of poisoning the well. For example: “John is about make his case for increasing the church’s youth budget. Don’t pay any attention to him — he’s the youth minister, what else would he say?”

9.4.2 Appeal to Force

The appeal to force, also called scare tactics, is a threat, either explicit or implicit. For example, imagine a student saying to a professor, “I deserve an A because my father is a major donor to this university and a very good friend of the dean.” The appeal to force tries to instill fear in the listener, and to be fallacious, the fear must be irrelevant to the truth of the claim. These are common in both advertising and politics. An example of an appeal to force in advertising would be an ad for a Medicare supplement policy with an elderly woman weeping in front of a pile of unpaid bills. The advertisement works by making the viewer afraid of ending up like the person in the commercial.

9.4.3 Appeal to Pity

The appeal to pity is like the appeal to force, except that the goal is to evoke pity, not fear. For example: “I deserve an A because my mother is very ill, and I had to spend most of my time caring for her this semester.”

9.4.4 Popular Appeal

This is also called appeal to the people. Here, the goal is to use the desire to be loved, admired, accepted, etc. to get others to accept the conclusion. Two important types are the bandwagon fallacy and the appeal to vanity.

9.4.4.1 Bandwagon

The bandwagon fallacy tells the listener that since everyone does, or believes, something, then they should too.

Example: “Everyone supports Smith for president. You need to get with the program and support him too!”

9.4.4.2 Appeal to Vanity

This is a claim that you will be admired if you do this. Unlike bandwagon, which claims that everyone does this, the appeal to vanity is usually about something that not everyone can do or have.

Example: “Wear a Rolex — that way everyone will know that you’re not just somebody.”

9.4.5 Appeal to Ignorance

9.4.5.1 burden of proof.

On most issues, one side will have the burden of proof. That means that if that side fails to make its case, then the other side wins by default. There are two standard rules for determining burden of proof:

• Especially for existence claims, the side making the positive case has the burden of proof.
• The side making the more implausible claim has the burden of proof.

Sometimes, these conditions can conflict. Here is an example:

Jill: Surely, there are species of insects that we have not yet discovered.

Jack: I don’t think that’s true.

Who has the burden of proof? Jill is making a positive existence claim, but it is one that very plausible. That makes Jack’s claim very implausible. In this case, I’d say that Jack has the burden of proof.

9.4.5.2 The Law

One area where these rules do not apply is the American legal system. There, the prosecution always has the burden of proof. That is, if the prosecution fails to make its case against the defendant, then the defense wins.

Burden of proof should not be confused with standard of proof. Burden of proof is concerned with who needs to make their case. Standard of proof is concerned with how strong a case needs to be made. There are four different levels of standard of proof in the law:

• Beyond a reasonable doubt
• Clear and convincing evidence
• Preponderance of evidence
• Probable cause

Criminal cases use the highest standard of proof, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is a high degree of probability. It does not mean that no doubt at all is possible, but that any doubt, given the evidence, would be unreasonable. The next two level are used in civil cases. Most civil cases are tried at the “preponderance of evidence” level. This means that, given the evidence, it is more likely that the defendant is liable than not. Clear and convincing evidence is a standard of proof between preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. It is used in civil cases that involve the potential loss of important rights or interests, such as the termination of potential rights. The lowest standard of proof is probable cause. This is used to determine if a search or arrest is warranted, and also used by grand juries to issue indictments.

9.4.6 Straw Man

The straw man fallacy Distorts a position so that it can be easily attacked. It does not address the actual view held by the opponent, but responds to a weaker version. It is often committed by making the conclusion of an argument more extreme than it actually is, since extreme views are often easy to attack.

Example: “Senator Snodgrass has argued that there be a mandatory waiting period before any handgun purchase. Obviously, the senator wants to make all firearm ownership illegal.”

Here some subtle ways of committing the fallacy:

• Taking words out of context.
• Treating extreme views as representative.
• Criticizing early versions of a position.
• Criticizing deliberately simplified versions of a position.

9.4.7 Red Herring

The goal of the red herring fallacy is to lead the opponent off the track, by subtly changing the issue being discussed. The arguer changes the subject to a different but related one. To determine if something is a red herring, ask yourself if the issue at the beginning of the argument is the same as the issue at the end. Here is an example:

The American Cancer Society has argued that smoking is bad for your health. Many people in the Southeastern United States are dependent upon the tobacco industry for their jobs. Making smoking illegal would have a devastating economic effect on many states. Therefore, the ACS is simply wrong.

Notice the original isse is whether smoking has bad health consequences. By the end of the paragraph, the issue has been changed to the economic impact of making smoking illegal.

9.4.8 Horse Laugh

This occurs when someone simply ridicules the position held, and offers no real response to the argument at all. For example: “Mr. Jones has argued that watching television is emotionally unhealthy. If you believe that, then I’ve got a great deal on some swampland for you.”

9.5 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumptions

9.5.1 begging the question.

An argument begs the question if it is impossible to believe at least one of the premises unless one already believes the conclusion. Note that if this is the case, then the premises cannot serve as reasons to believe the conclusion, since believing the premises requires already believing the conclusion. There are three common types of arguments that beg the question.

The first is a circular argument. That occurs when one explicitly uses the conclusion as support for one of the premises. Here is an example:

• The Bible says that God exists.
• The Bible is the inspired word of God.
• God exists.

The Bible can’t be the inspired word of God unless God exists, so the argument begs the question.

Another type of argument that begs the question is one that simply rephrases the conclusion and uses it as a premise. Example: “If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.” In this case, the conclusion is synonymous with one of the premises.

The last type is one that generalizes the conclusion and uses the generalized rule as a premise. Example: “Spanking children is wrong because corporal punishment is wrong.”

9.5.2 Appeal to Authority

The fallacy of appeal to authority is committed by using an pseudo-authority to support a claim. Note that it is not committed by merely appealing to an authority, but by appealing to an unqualified authority. Always ask, “Should this person know more about this subject than the average person?”

9.5.3 Loaded Question

A loaded question suggests something with the question. “Whem will you stop cheating on exams?” is a loaded question, the question implies that the person is cheating. Notice that there is no way to directly answer the question without admitting to cheating on exams.

9.5.4 False Dilemma

This is sometimes called the either-or fallacy. This happens when a person asserts a disjunction, a sentence of the form "either A or B , when there is at least one more option that is true. Disjunctions are true whenever at least one of the disjuncts, the sentences joined by the ‘or,’ are true. A False dilemma asserts that one of the two sentences must be true when there is really a third alternative. Here are some examples:

“Either buy our personal financial guide or never have control of your finances.”

Child to parent: “Either let me go to the party or I’ll just die.”

False dilemmas are often expressed in pithy slogans on bumper stickers: “It’s my way or the highway” or “America, love it or leave it.”

Consider this example: “My opponent voted against the public schools spending bill. He must think educating our children is not important.” The claim is that either one votes for the bill or one believes that education is not important. This is a false dilemma since there may be many other reasons to vote against a particular bill.

It’s important to remember that a disjunction can be expressed as a conditional: “Either let me go to that party or I’ll die” is equivalent to “If you don’t let me go to that party, then I’ll die.” In general, P or Q is equivalent to if not-P then Q.

9.5.5 Slippery Slope

Slippery slopes rest a conclusion on a chain reaction that is not likely to occur. They generally have this form:

In order for this to be a fallacy, at least one of the conditional statements in the premises must not be likely to be true. Here’s an example: “If I fail this test, then I will fail the course. If I fail the course, then I’ll be expelled from school. If I’m expelled from school, then I’ll never be able to have a good job. If I can’t get a good job, then I can’t support a family…”

To test for a slippery slope, just ask, are there any weak links in this chain of conditionals? Is it really the case that one failed exam will result in an F for a course grade?

3 Fallacies

I. what a re fallacies 1.

Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual nature. If I counted twenty people in the room when there were in fact twenty-one, then I made a factual mistake. On the other hand, if I believe that there are round squares I believe something that is contradictory. A belief in “round squares” is a mistake of reasoning and contains a fallacy because, if my reasoning were good, I would not believe something that is logically inconsistent with reality.

In some discussions, a fallacy is taken to be an undesirable kind of argument or inference. In our view, this definition of fallacy is rather narrow, since we might want to count certain mistakes of reasoning as fallacious even though they are not presented as arguments. For example, making a contradictory claim seems to be a case of fallacy, but a single claim is not an argument. Similarly, putting forward a question with an inappropriate presupposition might also be regarded as a fallacy, but a question is also not an argument. In both of these situations though, the person is making a mistake of reasoning since they are doing something that goes against one or more principles of correct reasoning. This is why we would like to define fallacies more broadly as violations of the principles of critical thinking , whether or not the mistakes take the form of an argument.

The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical thinking. Being familiar with typical fallacies can help us avoid them and help explain other people’s mistakes.

There are different ways of classifying fallacies. Broadly speaking, we might divide fallacies into four kinds:

• Fallacies of inconsistency: cases where something inconsistent or self-defeating has been proposed or accepted.
• Fallacies of relevance: cases where irrelevant reasons are being invoked or relevant reasons being ignored.
• Fallacies of insufficiency: cases where the evidence supporting a conclusion is insufficient or weak.
• Fallacies of inappropriate presumption: cases where we have an assumption or a question presupposing something that is not reasonable to accept in the relevant conversational context.

II. Fallacies of I nconsistency

Fallacies of inconsistency are cases where something inconsistent, self-contradictory or self-defeating is presented.

1. Inconsistency

Here are some examples:

• “One thing that we know for certain is that nothing is ever true or false.” – If there is something we know for certain, then there is at least one truth that we know. So it can’t be the case that nothing is true or false.
• “Morality is relative and is just a matter of opinion, and so it is always wrong to impose our opinions on other people.” – But if morality is relative, it is also a relative matter whether we should impose our opinions on other people. If we should not do that, there is at least one thing that is objectively wrong.
• “All general claims have exceptions.” – This claim itself is a general claim, and so if it is to be regarded as true we must presuppose that there is an exception to it, which would imply that there exists at least one general claim that does not have an exception. So the claim itself is inconsistent.

2. Self- D efeating C laims

A self-defeating statement is a statement that, strictly speaking, is not logically inconsistent but is instead obviously false. Consider these examples:

• Very young children are fond of saying “I am not here” when they are playing hide-and-seek. The statement itself is not logically consistent, since it is not logically possible for the child not to be where she is. What is impossible is to  utter the sentence as a true sentence  (unless it is used for example in a telephone recorded message.)
• Someone who says, “I cannot speak any English.”
• Here is an actual example: A TV program in Hong Kong was critical of the Government. When the Hong Kong Chief Executive Mr. Tung was asked about it, he replied, “I shall not comment on such distasteful programs.” Mr. Tung’s remark was not logically inconsistent, because what it describes is a possible state of affairs. But it is nonetheless self-defeating because calling the program “distasteful” is to pass a comment!

III. Fallacies of R elevance

1. taking irrelevant considerations into account.

This includes defending a conclusion by appealing to irrelevant reasons, e.g., inappropriate appeal to pity, popular opinion, tradition, authority, etc. An example would be when a student failed a course and asked the teacher to give him a pass instead, because “his parents will be upset.” Since grades should be given on the basis of performance, the reason being given is quite irrelevant.

Similarly, suppose someone criticizes the Democratic Party’s call for direct elections in Hong Kong as follows: “These arguments supporting direct elections have no merit because they are advanced by Democrats who naturally stand to gain from it.” This is again fallacious because whether the person advancing the argument has something to gain from direct elections is a completely different issue from whether there ought to be direct elections.

2. Failing to T ake R elevant C onsiderations into A ccount

For example, it is not unusual for us to ignore or downplay criticisms because we do not like them, even when those criticisms are justified. Or sometimes we might be tempted to make a snap decision, believing knee-jerk reactions are the best when, in fact, we should be investigating the situation more carefully and doing more research.

Of course, if we fail to consider a relevant fact simply because we are ignorant of it, then this lack of knowledge does not constitute a fallacy.

IV. Fallacies of Insufficiency

Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is provided in support of a claim. Most common fallacies fall within this category. Here are a few popular types:

1. Limited S ampling

• Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the age of 96. He said he ate instant noodles every day. So instant noodles cannot be bad for your health.
• A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a traffic accident this afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky.

In both cases the observations are relevant to the conclusion, but a lot more data is needed to support the conclusion, e.g., studies show that many other people who eat instant noodles live longer, and those who encounter black cats are more likely to suffer from accidents.

2. Appeal to I gnorance

• We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must be guilty.

If someone is guilty, it would indeed be hard to find evidence showing that he is innocent. But perhaps there is no evidence to point either way, so a lack of evidence is not enough to prove guilt.

3. Naturalistic F allacy

• Many children enjoy playing video games, so we should not stop them from playing.

Many naturalistic fallacies are examples of fallacy of insufficiency. Empirical facts by themselves are not sufficient for normative conclusions, even if they are relevant.

There are many other kinds of fallacy of insufficiency. See if you can identify some of them.

V. Fallacies of Inappropriate Presumption

Fallacies of inappropriate presumption are cases where we have explicitly or implicitly made an assumption that is not reasonable to accept in the relevant context. Some examples include:

• Many people like to ask whether human nature is good or evil. This presupposes that there is such a thing as human nature and that it must be either good or bad. But why should these assumptions be accepted, and are they the only options available? What if human nature is neither good nor bad? Or what if good or bad nature applies only to individual human beings?
• Consider the question “Have you stopped being an idiot?” Whether you answer “yes” or “no,” you admit that you are, or have been, an idiot. Presumably you do not want to make any such admission. We can point out that this question has a false assumption.
• “Same-sex marriage should not be allowed because by definition a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” This argument assumes that only a heterosexual conception of marriage is correct. But this begs the question against those who defend same-sex marriages and is not an appropriate assumption to make when debating this issue.

VI. List of Common Fallacies

A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for it. Example:

A: The Government should enact minimum-wage legislation so that workers are not exploited. B: Nonsense. You say that only because you cannot find a good job.

ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it. A simple obvious example of such fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against their existence. At first sight it seems that many theories that we describe as “scientific” involve such a fallacy. For example, the first law of thermodynamics holds because so far there has not been any negative instance that would serve as evidence against it. But notice, as in cases like this, there is evidence for the law, namely positive instances. Notice also that this fallacy does not apply to situations where there are only two rival claims and one has already been falsified. In situations such as this, we may justly establish the truth of the other even if we cannot find evidence for or against it.

ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

In offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens when people argue for special treatment on the basis of their need, e.g., a student argues that the teacher should let them pass the examination because they need it in order to graduate. Of course, pity might be a relevant consideration in certain conditions, as in contexts involving charity.

ad populum (appeal to popularity)

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy committed by many commercials. Surely you have heard of commercials implying that we should buy a certain product because it has made to the top of a sales rank, or because the brand is the city’s “favorite.”

Affirming the consequent

Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that it ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from P that might lead to Q. For example, if there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But if we argue from his being late to there being a traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy – the colleague may be late due to a faulty alarm clock.

Of course, if we have evidence showing that P is the only or most likely condition that leads to Q, then we can infer that P is likely to be true without committing a fallacy.

Begging the question ( petito principii )

In arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise. Example: “God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God.”

Complex question or loaded question

A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer they give to the question, will inevitably commit themselves to some other claim, which should not be presupposed in the context in question.

A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people into agreeing to something they never intended to say. For example, if you are asked, “Are you still as self-centered as you used to be?”, no matter whether you answer “yes” or ”no,” you are bound to admit that you were self-centered in the past. Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question were indeed accepted in the conversational context, i.e., that the person being asked the question had been verifiably self-centered in the past.

Composition (opposite of division)

The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts. Anne might be humorous and fun-loving and an excellent person to invite to the party. The same might be true of Ben, Chris and David, considered individually. But it does not follow that it will be a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they hate each other and the party will be ruined.

Denying the antecedent

Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true, Q is also true, but P is false.

This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is that some alternative explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition might be sufficient to make Q true.

Example: If there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But it is not right to argue in the light of smooth traffic that the colleague will not be late. Again, his alarm clock may have stopped working.

Division (opposite of composition)

The parts of a whole are assumed to have the same properties as the whole. It is possible that, on a whole, a company is very effective, while some of its departments are not. It would be inappropriate to assume they all are.

Equivocation

Putting forward an argument where a word changes meaning without having it pointed out. For example, some philosophers argue that all acts are selfish. Even if you strive to serve others, you are still acting selfishly because your act is just to satisfy your desire to serve others. But surely the word “selfish” has different meanings in the premise and the conclusion – when we say a person is selfish we usually mean that he does not strive to serve others. To say that a person is selfish because he is doing something he wants, even when what he wants is to help others, is to use the term “selfish” with a different meaning.

False dilemma

Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context. Example: “Every person is either my enemy or my friend. If they are my enemy, I should hate them. If they’re my friend, I should love them. So I should either love them or hate them.” Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.

Gambler’s fallacy

Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as dependent. The untrained mind tends to think that, for example, if a fair coin is tossed five times and the results are all heads, then the next toss will more likely be a tail. It will not be, however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is completely independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is not known. Had the final result been known already, the statistics would have been dependent.

Genetic fallacy

Thinking that because X derives from Y, and because Y has a certain property, that X must also possess that same property. Example: “His father is a criminal, so he must also be up to no good.”

Non sequitur

A conclusion is drawn that does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific fallacy but a very general term for a bad argument. So a lot of the examples above and below can be said to be non sequitur.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc  (literally, “ after this, therefore because of this ” )

Inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is followed by Y.

For example, having visited a graveyard, I fell ill and infer that graveyards are spooky places that cause illnesses. Of course, this inference is not warranted since this might just be a coincidence. However, a lot of superstitious beliefs commit this fallacy.

Red herring

Within an argument some irrelevant issue is raised that diverts attention from the main subject. The function of the red herring is sometimes to help express a strong, biased opinion. The red herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the force of the argument in a very misleading manner.

For example, in a debate as to whether God exists, someone might argue that believing in God gives peace and meaning to many people’s lives. This would be an example of a red herring since whether religions can have a positive effect on people is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. The positive psychological effect of a belief is not a reason for thinking that the belief is true.

Slippery slope

Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C 1 , then they have to accept some other closely related claim C 2 , which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim C 3 , eventually leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed to something absurd or obviously unacceptable.

This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is inappropriate to think if one were to accept the initial claim, one must accept all the other claims.

An example: “The government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise the government should also ban alcohol or cigarettes. And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated too. The next thing you know, the government would force us to brush our teeth and do exercises every day.”

Attacking an opponent while falsely attributing to them an implausible position that is easily defeated.

Example: When many people argue for more democracy in Hong Kong, a typical “straw man” reply is to say that more democracy is not warranted because it is wrong to believe that democracy is the solution to all of Hong Kong’s problems. But those who support more democracy in Hong Kong never suggest that democracy can solve  all  problems (e.g., pollution), and those who support more democracy in Hong Kong might even agree that  blindly  accepting anything is rarely the correct course of action, whether it is democracy or not. Theses criticisms attack implausible “straw man” positions and do not address the real arguments for democracy.

Suppressed evidence

Where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence is presented.

VII. Exercises

Identify any fallacy in each of these passages. If no fallacy is committed, select “no fallacy involved.”

1. Mr. Lee’s views on Japanese culture are wrong. This is because his parents were killed by the Japanese army during World War II and that made him anti-Japanese all his life.

2. Every ingredient of this soup is tasty. So this must be a very tasty soup.

3. Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer.

4. Professor Lewis, the world authority on logic, claims that all wives cook for their husbands. But the fact is that his own wife does not cook for him. Therefore, his claim is false.

5. If Catholicism is right, then no women should be allowed to be priests. But Catholicism is wrong. Therefore, some women should be allowed to be priests.

6. God does not exist because every argument for the existence of God has been shown to be unsound.

7. The last three times I have had a cold I took large doses of vitamin C. On each occasion, the cold cleared up within a few days. So vitamin C helped me recover from colds.

8. The union’s case for more funding for higher education can be ignored because it is put forward by the very people – university staff – who would benefit from the increased money.

9. Children become able to solve complex problems and think of physical objects objectively at the same time that they learn language. Therefore, these abilities are caused by learning a language.

10. If cheap things are no good then this cheap watch is no good. But this watch is actually quite good. So some good things are cheap.

Critical Thinking Copyright © 2019 by Brian Kim is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Following are the main learning objectives from the chapter. pgs. 162-178) : This fallacy occurs when an arguer cites an authority who, there is good reason to believe is unreliable. You should recognize the following instances of inappropriate appeals to authority: : This fallacy occurs when an arguer appeals to a lack of evidence against some claim as positive evidence that the claim is true, or when an arguer appeals to a lack of evidence for some claim as positive evidence that the claim is false. : This fallacy is committed when an arguer poses a false dichotomy. This fallacy is committed when an arguer asks a question which contains an unwarranted assumption. : This fallacy occurs when an arguer gives insufficient evidence for a claim that one thing is the cause of another. You should recognize the following instances of Questionable Cause: : This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without adequate reason, that because one event precedes another, that the first event was the cause of the second. : This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without adequate reason, that because two conditions or events regularly occur together, that there must be a causal relationship between them. : This fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes, without sufficient evidence, that a single condition or event is the sole cause of some effect, when there are in fact other contributing causes. : This fallacy occurs when an arguer draws a general conclusion from a sample that is either biased or too small. sample is one that is not representative of the target population. is the group of people or things that the generalization is about. . : An arguer commits this fallacy when they claim, without sufficient reason, that a seemingly harmless action will lead to a disastrous outcome. Slippery slope arguments generally follow this pattern: : When the conclusion of an argument depends upon a comparison between two (or more) things that are not similar in relevant respects, the fallacy of weak analogy is committed. This fallacy generally follows the pattern: : This fallacy occurs when an arguer asserts inconsistent premises, asserts a premise that is inconsistent with his or her conclusion, or argues for inconsistent conclusions. Any use is subject to the and . is one of the many fine businesses of . Want to share this fallacy on Facebook? Here's a button for you: Wall posters, decks of cards and other rather nice things that you might like to own in either free pixel-based or slightly more expensive real-life formats. Download your poster Could you please make a small donation to help spread critical thinking. Your donation may also be used for beer, but this arguably gives me energy to do altruistic work. Get started with computers Learn Microsoft Office Apply for a job Improve my work skills Design nice-looking docs Getting Started Smartphones & Tablets Typing Tutorial Online Learning Basic Internet Skills Online Safety Social Media Zoom Basics Google Docs Google Sheets Career Planning Resume Writing Cover Letters Job Search and Networking Business Communication Entrepreneurship 101 Careers without College Job Hunt for Today 3D Printing Freelancing 101 Personal Finance Sharing Economy Decision-Making Graphic Design Photography Image Editing Learning WordPress Language Learning Critical Thinking For Educators Translations Staff Picks English expand_more expand_less Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - Logical Fallacies Critical thinking and decision-making  -, logical fallacies, critical thinking and decision-making logical fallacies. Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: Logical Fallacies Lesson 7: logical fallacies. /en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/how-critical-thinking-can-change-the-game/content/ Logical fallacies If you think about it, vegetables are bad for you. I mean, after all, the dinosaurs ate plants, and look at what happened to them... Let's pause for a moment: That argument was pretty ridiculous. And that's because it contained a logical fallacy . A logical fallacy is any kind of error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid . They can involve distorting or manipulating facts, drawing false conclusions, or distracting you from the issue at hand. In theory, it seems like they'd be pretty easy to spot, but this isn't always the case. Watch the video below to learn more about logical fallacies. Sometimes logical fallacies are intentionally used to try and win a debate. In these cases, they're often presented by the speaker with a certain level of confidence . And in doing so, they're more persuasive : If they sound like they know what they're talking about, we're more likely to believe them, even if their stance doesn't make complete logical sense. False cause One common logical fallacy is the false cause . This is when someone incorrectly identifies the cause of something. In my argument above, I stated that dinosaurs became extinct because they ate vegetables. While these two things did happen, a diet of vegetables was not the cause of their extinction. Maybe you've heard false cause more commonly represented by the phrase "correlation does not equal causation ", meaning that just because two things occurred around the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other. A straw man is when someone takes an argument and misrepresents it so that it's easier to attack . For example, let's say Callie is advocating that sporks should be the new standard for silverware because they're more efficient. Madeline responds that she's shocked Callie would want to outlaw spoons and forks, and put millions out of work at the fork and spoon factories. A straw man is frequently used in politics in an effort to discredit another politician's views on a particular issue. Begging the question Begging the question is a type of circular argument where someone includes the conclusion as a part of their reasoning. For example, George says, “Ghosts exist because I saw a ghost in my closet!" George concluded that “ghosts exist”. His premise also assumed that ghosts exist. Rather than assuming that ghosts exist from the outset, George should have used evidence and reasoning to try and prove that they exist. Since George assumed that ghosts exist, he was less likely to see other explanations for what he saw. Maybe the ghost was nothing more than a mop! False dilemma The false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy where a situation is presented as being an either/or option when, in reality, there are more possible options available than just the chosen two. Here's an example: Rebecca rings the doorbell but Ethan doesn't answer. She then thinks, "Oh, Ethan must not be home." Rebecca posits that either Ethan answers the door or he isn't home. In reality, he could be sleeping, doing some work in the backyard, or taking a shower. Most logical fallacies can be spotted by thinking critically . Make sure to ask questions: Is logic at work here or is it simply rhetoric? Does their "proof" actually lead to the conclusion they're proposing? By applying critical thinking, you'll be able to detect logical fallacies in the world around you and prevent yourself from using them as well. What Is The Loaded Question Fallacy? Definition and Examples Editorial Staff at FinMasters is a group of financial writers, researchers and professionals led by Steve Rogers. Loaded question , sometimes called a “complex question”, is a type of logical fallacy – an error in reasoning or a trick of thought used as a debate tactic. This type of question is an attempt to limit the possible answers to only “yes” or “no”, and choosing either response would end up hurting the respondent’s credibility or reputation. As such, loaded questions are frequently used as a rhetorical tool in various contexts, such as journalism and politics. In this article, we’ll explain how this fallacy works and examine a variety of examples. But first, here are a few quick facts: What is a loaded question? It occurs when someone asks a question containing an unjustified (and often offensive) presupposition. What is an example of a loaded question? An example would be: “So, have you always had a gambling problem?” What is the difference between a leading question and a loaded question? A leading question is one that suggests the answer desired by the speaker, while a loaded question includes an implicit assumption about the respondent. The loaded question fallacy is a question containing an implicit assumption – that is unverified or controversial – putting the person being questioned in a defensive and unfavorable position. It’s a type of trick question: it is designed to imply something that the interrogee probably disagrees with and make the listeners into believing that the implication is true. Moreover, it is typically made in a way that protects the person doing the questioning. As Bo Bennet explained in his Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies : A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. Furthermore, it’s also known as a “complex question” (closely related to a loaded question), “false question”, and “fallacy of presupposition”. Not fallacious It is important to keep in mind that not every assuming question is loaded. This logical fallacy occurs only if the implication being made is not a verified and accepted fact. For instance, if the respondent in the first example below is known to be an abuser, then the question wouldn’t be fallacious. 👉 Example 1 A classic example of a loaded question is: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” This question implicitly assumes that the respondent has been abusing his wife in the past, and whether he was to answer “yes” or “no”, he would appear to admit that the implication is true: A “yes” would mean that he has, in fact, been beating his wife in the past, however not anymore, and a “no” would mean that he has and still is beating his wife. Note that a good response and a way out of such a question would be to directly address the implication and refute it: “I have never beaten my wife”. 👩‍🔬 Example 2 Another example would be: “So you are one of those science-hating creationists?” Here, the question assumes that the respondent must hate science if they believe in creationism. This can also be seen as a leading question because it attempts to force them to agree with the questioner’s views; it not-so-subtly suggests that denying the question would be the “correct” answer; replying “yes” would mean that he or she agrees to hate science. As such, it’s a manipulative attempt by the questioner to limit the possible replies to only those that would serve their agenda. 🧒 Example in Real-Life Madeleine Albright, who was U.S Ambassador to the U.N, was asked a loaded question and fell into the trap on 60 minutes (in 1996) regarding the effects of UN sanctions against Iraq: Lesley Stahl: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Madeleine Albright: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” 👉 Other Examples “Why do you hate religious people?” ‘‘Where did you hide the gun?’’ “So, have you always had a gambling problem?” “Why are you so lazy?” “Have you always been an alcoholic?” 📚 Useful Links : Loaded Question – Definitions Loaded Question – saylor.org A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy – Douglas N. Walton Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies By Editorial Staff Contributing writer, more in logical fallacies. Circular Reasoning: Definition and Examples Genetic Fallacy: Definition And Examples Poisoning the Well (Logical Fallacy): Definition and Examples Red Herring Fallacy: Definition and Examples Begging the Question Fallacy — Definition and Examples Whataboutism: When People Counter Accusations with Accusations Straw Man Argument (Logical Fallacy): Definition and Examples Slippery Slope Fallacy: Definition and Examples Gish Gallop (Logical Fallacy): Definition and Examples Ad Hominem: When Personal Attacks Become Fallacious No True Scotsman Fallacy – Definition and Examples Middle Ground Fallacy: Definition and Examples Tu Quoque Fallacy – Definition and Examples What Is the Fallacy of Composition? Definition And Examples Logical Fallacy vs Cognitive Bias – What Is The Difference Between Them? Burden of Proof Fallacy: Who Has the Burden of Proof and Why? Circumstantial Ad Hominem: What Is It and Why Is It a Fallacy? Beginner’s Guide to Logical Fallacies (With Examples) Cookie Policy Privacy Policy Why Are Gas Prices so High? 18 Questions Answered! We did a little mythbusting on one of the burning questions of the moment. Here's what you need to know about why gas prices are so ... How Does Inflation Work: An Illustrated Guide for the Rest of Us With all this talk about inflation have you ever stopped to consider if you really know what inflation is? If you’re not really sure - join the club and read on. ... 12 Valuation Ratios Every Investor Should Know Learn all about the 12 valuation ratios that allow investors to quickly estimate a business’s value relative to its ... Popular Articles 12 best rent reporting services in 2024. Not all rent reporting services are created equal. To maximize your credit score increase you need to choose the best rent reporter for you. Learn ... The 15/3 Credit Card Payment Hack: How, Why, and When It Works Here's what you should know about the 15/3 credit card payment hack, including how it works and whether you should use ... Yes, You Can Build Credit with a Debit Card. Here’s How! In this blog post, we take a closer look at why you couldn't build credit with a debit card before, and why you can ... PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic (2018.A.01) Enrollment options. Time: 40 hours College Credit Recommended ($25 Proctor Fee) --> Free Certificate Nick Lachey Diet & Nutrition Green Living Home Improvement Inspiration Pets and Animals Relationships News Week Magazine PRO Privacy Policy Terms and Conditions Begging the Question: How to Identify and Avoid This Common Logical Fallacy The ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of its conclusion. Put another way, it is when someone assumes the truth of what they are trying to prove. This type of reasoning can lead to flawed arguments and can be especially persuasive if not noticed or pointed out. In this article, we will discuss what constitutes a ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy and how to spot this type of faulty reasoning. What is Begging The Question Fallacy? The ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of its conclusion. This means that the person making the argument has assumed the truth of their point without providing any evidence to support it. This type of reasoning can be especially persuasive if not noticed or pointed out. Put simply, begging the question is a circular argument in which someone assumes the truth of what they are trying to prove. Importance of identifying logical fallacies The importance of identifying logical fallacies cannot be overstated. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can lead to flawed arguments and false conclusions. By recognizing a fallacy, we can avoid being misled by bad arguments and instead focus on finding valid evidence that supports our claims. It is important to remember that every argument should include evidence and logic, rather than just assumptions or personal opinions. Being able to identify logical fallacies can help us avoid being misled by faulty reasoning and instead focus on finding evidence that supports our claims. Common Examples of Begging the Question Circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a form of the begging the question fallacy. Circular reasoning occurs when someone uses the conclusion of an argument as a premise for the same argument. This type of reasoning can be hard to spot because it appears valid on its surface, but in reality it is just repeating the same point. For example, if someone were to argue that God exists because the Bible says so and then use the Bible as evidence that God exists, they would be using circular reasoning. Assumed premises Another form of the begging the question fallacy is when someone assumes a premise without providing evidence to support it. This type of fallacy occurs when someone makes an assumption about something without any facts or evidence to back it up. For example, if someone were to argue that all dogs are lazy because their own dog is lazy, they would be assuming a premise without providing any evidence to support it. Loaded questions A loaded question is a type of begging the question fallacy. The fallacy occurs when someone uses a question that implies the answer they want to hear or contains assumptions in the form of an answer. This type of reasoning can be hard to spot because it appears to be a legitimate question, but in reality it is designed to lead people toward a particular conclusion. For example, if someone were to ask “Do you still beat your wife?” they would be using a loaded question to imply that the person being asked has a history of violence. Identifying the Begging the Question Fallacy Understanding the structure of an argument. Understanding the structure of an argument is an important step in identifying the ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy. An argument can be broken down into its premises and conclusion, with each premise providing support for the conclusion. When looking for logical fallacies, it is important to examine each premise to ensure that it does not assume the truth of its conclusion. If a premise does assume the truth of its conclusion, then the argument is guilty of begging the question. Examining assumptions and premises When examining an argument for the ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy, it is important to look closely at the assumptions and premises that are used to support the conclusion. If a premise assumes the truth of its conclusion, then it is guilty of begging the question. It is also important to consider whether any premises are based on assumptions or personal opinion rather than facts or evidence. If this is the case, then it is likely that the argument is guilty of begging the question. Evaluating supporting evidence When evaluating an argument for the ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy, it is important to consider the evidence that is used to support each premise. If a premise relies solely on opinion or assumptions rather than facts or evidence, then it is likely that the argument is guilty of begging the question. It is also important to consider whether any of the premises rely on circular reasoning or loaded questions. If so, then the argument is likely guilty of begging the question. Impact of Begging the Question on Arguments Weakening the credibility of an argument. The begging the question fallacy weakens the credibility of an argument by introducing unsupported assumptions or circular reasoning into it. By using premises that assume the truth of their conclusion, or by relying on evidence that is based on opinion rather than fact, arguments can become less convincing and less persuasive. This can lead to arguments being dismissed as unconvincing or invalid, which can undermine any claim made in the argument. Hindering productive discussion The begging the question fallacy can hinder productive discussion by introducing assumptions and circular reasoning into an argument. By relying on premises that assume their conclusion, or by using loaded questions to attempt to lead people towards a particular answer, arguments can become less convincing and less persuasive. This can lead to disagreement rather than understanding, as those involved may find it difficult to move past the fallacy and identify any valid points that are being made. Contributing to polarization and echo chambers The begging the question fallacy can contribute to polarization and echo chambers by introducing assumptions and circular reasoning into an argument. By relying on premises that assume their conclusion, or by using loaded questions to attempt to lead people towards a particular answer, arguments can become less convincing and less persuasive. This can lead people to hold onto rigidly fixed beliefs, as they may be unable to move past the fallacy and identify any valid points that are being made. This can cause people to become entrenched in their own point of view, leading to polarization and echo chambers. Avoiding Begging the Question in Your Arguments Examining your own assumptions and premises. Examining your own assumptions and premises is an important step in avoiding the ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy. It is important to consider whether any of your premises are based on assumptions or personal opinion, rather than facts or evidence. If this is the case, then there is a chance that you may be guilty of begging the question. It is also important to examine each premise for any circular reasoning or loaded questions. If you find any of these, then it is a good idea to revise your arguments so that they are more convincing and persuasive. Seeking out different perspectives When constructing an argument, it is important to seek out different perspectives in order to avoid the ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy. Making sure to include different viewpoints can help to ensure that all premises are based on facts or evidence rather than assumptions or personal opinion. This can also help to prevent loaded questions or circular reasoning from entering into the argument, ensuring that it is more convincing and persuasive. Using sound evidence and logical reasoning When constructing an argument, it is important to use sound evidence and logical reasoning in order to avoid the ‘Begging the Question’ fallacy. Sound evidence should be used to support each premise, rather than relying on assumptions or personal opinion. This can help to ensure that the argument is based on facts and reasoned logic, rather than circular reasoning or loaded questions. The begging the question fallacy is a logical fallacy that weakens the credibility of an argument by introducing unsupported assumptions or circular reasoning into it. By relying on premises that assume their conclusion, or by using loaded questions to attempt to lead people towards a particular answer, arguments can become less convincing and less persuasive. This can lead to disagreement rather than understanding, hindering productive discussion and contributing to polarization and echo chambers. The importance of critical thinking and avoiding logical fallacies in discussions and debates cannot be overstated. Logical fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that can lead to flawed arguments. The “begging the question” fallacy is a classic example of such a mistake, as it relies on assumptions or circular reasoning to make an argument convincing rather than logic or evidence. If allowed to go unchecked, logical fallacies can lead to disagreement and polarization, making it difficult for meaningful discussion to take place. Therefore, it is important to recognize and avoid logical fallacies in order to ensure productive and constructive conversations. Gildan Men's Crew T-Shirts, Multipack, Style G1100 Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max streaming device, supports Wi-Fi 6E, free & live TV without cable or satellite Ailun 3 Pack Screen Protector for iPhone 15 Pro Max [6.7 inch] + 3 Pack Camera Lens Protector with Installation Frame,Sensor Protection,Dynamic Island Compatible,Case Friendly Tempered Glass Film Apple AirTag CELSIUS Assorted Flavors Official Variety Pack, Functional Essential Energy Drinks, 12 Fl Oz (Pack of 12) LEAVE A REPLY Log in to leave a comment Share post: Discover High Dopamine Hobbies: Boost Your Mood! The ultimate guide to basking shark predators, discovering what excites individuals with adhd, calming adhd: effective strategies, craft show faux pas: 10 mistakes to avoid, more like this related. Entertainment Beauty & Style Home & Garden Nick Lachey is your news, entertainment, music fashion website. We provide you with the latest breaking news and videos straight from the entertainment industry. © 2024 NickLachey All Rights Reserved. Begging the Question Fallacy (29 Examples + Definition) Ever found yourself in a discussion where the other person's argument seemed to circle back on itself? You're not alone. These circular conversations can be confusing and, more often than not, unproductive. A begging the question fallacy occurs when the argument's conclusion is assumed in its premise. In other words, it's a form of circular reasoning where the thing you're trying to prove is already assumed to be true. As you learn more about this intriguing topic, you'll uncover its history, how to spot it, and ways to effectively counter it. We'll also share some begging the question fallacy examples. What is a Begging the Question Fallacy? Imagine someone telling you that pizza is the best food because it tastes amazing. While that might sound persuasive, what if you asked them why it tastes amazing? If their response is, "Because it's the best food," you're caught in a loop. This sentence is a prime example of begging the question—starting and ending the argument with the same point. Here's the deal. A begging the question fallacy is an argumentative pitfall where the claim being made is based on premises that assume the claim is true. It's like saying, "I'm right because I'm right." It doesn't give you any new information and certainly doesn't prove the point it's trying to make. That's the essence of circular reasoning , where the argument keeps going in circles without getting anywhere. This is not a logically valid argument, which makes it a fallacy. Fallacies are logical errors, usually in arguments, that people make which lead to inconsistent reasoning. A good argument will have a conclusion based on presented evidence. A begging the question fallacy does not present any evidence, which means assuming the first premise is correct. Think of it like a dog chasing its own tail. The dog believes it can catch the tail, but it's part of the dog, to begin with. Similarly, a begging the question fallacy doesn't give you a concrete answer; it just makes you go round and round. You don't want to be that dog, trust me. Other Names for this Fallacy Petitio Principii Circular Reasoning Assuming the Initial Point Similar Logical Fallacies Ad Hominem : Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself Strawman Fallacy : Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack False Dichotomy : Presenting only two options when more are available Appeal to Authority : Using the opinion of an "expert" as the sole basis for an argument Slippery Slope : Arguing that a certain action will set off an uncontrollable chain of events The term "begging the question" has its roots in the Latin phrase "Petitio Principii," which roughly translates to "assuming the initial point." It's been a part of philosophical discussions since Aristotle's time, showing just how long people have been caught up in these endlessly circular arguments. Over time, the concept has trickled down into everyday language, though it's often misunderstood or misused. So next time you encounter it, you'll know exactly what's going on. 29 Examples 1) the perpetual student. "You keep failing your exams because you're not smart." This assumes that failing exams is solely a result of not being smart, which is the very point in question. This example ignores other factors like lack of preparation or external distractions. 2) The Perfect Employee "Sarah is the best employee because she's so efficient and effective." The statement assumes Sarah is efficient and effective, which is the point it's trying to prove. It begs the question by presenting the conclusion as its own evidence. 3) Money Buys Happiness "People with more money are happier because they can buy things that make them happy." This statement assumes that buying things is what makes people happy, which is the exact point it's trying to prove. The argument is inherently circular. 4) Democracy is Best "Democracy is the best form of government because it offers the most freedom." This statement assumes that democracy does indeed offer the most freedom, a point that is supposed to be proven. It begs the question by using its own conclusion as proof of its premise. 5) An Innocent Man "He can't be a criminal; he's innocent." This example assumes that the man is innocent, which is exactly what it's trying to prove. It's a textbook case of begging the question. 6) Curing Insomnia "Taking this medication will help you sleep because it has a sleep-inducing effect." The statement assumes the medication will induce sleep, which is the point that needs to be proven. This example begs the question by assuming what it sets out to prove. 7) Superstitious Beliefs "Crossing the street when a black cat crosses your path is bad luck because it's a common superstition." This example assumes that the superstition is valid, which is what it's trying to prove, making it a begging the question fallacy. 8) Climate Change Skeptic "Climate change isn't real because the Earth isn't getting warmer." This statement assumes the Earth isn't getting warmer, the very point it's trying to prove. It falls under begging the question. 9) Procrastination Excuse "I'll do it later because I'm too busy now." This statement assumes that being busy is a valid reason for delaying tasks. It begs the question by presenting its own conclusion as evidence. 10) Organic Food Benefits "Eating organic food is healthier because it's free from chemicals." This statement assumes that being free from chemicals makes food healthier, the original point it's trying to prove. It begs the question by being a circular argument. 11) The Popular Restaurant "This restaurant is popular because everyone likes eating there." The statement assumes that everyone likes the restaurant, the very point it's attempting to prove. It's a begging the question fallacy. 12) The Trustworthy Friend "You can trust Jane because she's very reliable." This statement assumes that Jane is reliable, an assumption which is the point in question. It begs the question by presenting its own conclusion as its premise with no justification or explanation. 13) Strict Parenting "Strict parenting produces well-behaved kids because it instills discipline." The argument assumes that strict parenting instills discipline, the very point it's trying to prove. This is a classic example of begging the question. 14) Unemployment Benefits "People who are unemployed shouldn't get benefits because they're just lazy." This fallacious example assumes that unemployed people are lazy, which is the point it's trying to prove. It falls under begging the question. 15) Higher Education "Everyone should go to college because it's the best way to get an education." This example assumes that college is the best way to get an education, the argument's premises assume the point it's trying to prove. It's a classic begging the question fallacy. 16) Social Media Fame "He has a lot of followers, so he must be popular." This statement assumes that having a lot of followers makes one popular, the point it's attempting to prove. It begs the question. 17) Vegan Diet "A vegan diet is healthier because it doesn't include harmful animal fats." This statement assumes that animal fats are harmful, which is what it's trying to prove. It's begging the question. 18) Gun Control "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." This statement assumes that guns are not the issue, which is the very point it's trying to prove. It begs the question. 19) Drug Legalization "Drugs should be illegal because they are harmful." This statement assumes that drugs are harmful, the point it's trying to prove. It falls under begging the question. 20) The Faithful Partner "He's never cheated before, so he won't cheat now." This assumes that past behavior guarantees future behavior, which is the point in question. It begs the question. 21) Marriage Success "A successful marriage is based on happiness." This statement assumes that happiness is the key to a successful marriage, which is the point it's trying to prove. It's a begging the question fallacy. 22) Freedom of Speech "Freedom of speech is important because it allows people to express themselves." This example assumes the belief that allowing people to express themselves is important, the very point it's trying to prove. It's a classic begging the question scenario. 23) Fast Food is Unhealthy "Fast food is bad for you because it's not nutritious." This statement assumes that fast food isn't nutritious, which is what it's trying to prove. It's begging the question. 24) Intelligence Quotient "People with high IQs are more intelligent." This statement assumes that a high IQ is an indicator of intelligence, the very point it's trying to prove. It begs the question. 25) Salary Increase "People who work harder should get paid more because they do more work." This statement assumes that doing more work should result in higher pay, which is the point it's trying to prove. It's a begging the question fallacy. 26) Academic Success "Good grades are important because they prove you're smart." This example assumes that good grades are a sign of intelligence, the point it's trying to prove. It begs the question. 27) Home Ownership "Owning a home is better than renting because you're not throwing money away." This statement assumes that renting is throwing money away, which is the point it's trying to prove. It begs the question. 28) Smoking Hazards "Smoking is dangerous because it's bad for your health." This statement assumes that smoking is bad for your health, which is the point it's trying to prove. It's a begging the question fallacy. 29) Talent Over Hard Work "Natural talent is better than hard work because you're born with it." This statement assumes that being born with a skill makes it better, which is the point it's trying to prove. It begs the question. The Psychological Mechanisms Behind It Begging the question is a sneaky fallacy, but it's not always intentional. Sometimes, it can be a product of cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are basically shortcuts your brain takes when processing information. The problem is, these shortcuts can sometimes lead you astray. For example, the " confirmation bias " can make you more likely to accept arguments that support what you already believe, even if those arguments are fundamentally flawed. So, if you already believe that "money buys happiness," an argument that begs the question might seem completely logical to you. Another psychological factor is "mental laziness" or the tendency to avoid critical thinking . It's easier to accept a statement at face value than to dissect its reasoning. This can especially be the case when the statement aligns with societal norms or popular beliefs. So, your brain might be more willing to accept a begging the question fallacy simply because it saves mental energy. The Impact of the Begging the Question Fallacy The begging the question fallacy might seem harmless, but its impact can be significant. For starters, it can distort public debates and discussions. Imagine a political debate where one candidate uses this logical fallacy to justify their policies. If people don't catch the flaw in logic, they might accept the argument, leading to uninformed voting decisions. The fallacy also affects personal interactions. Say you're trying to solve a problem at work, but a coworker uses a begging the question argument to dismiss alternative solutions. This can stifle innovation and lead to suboptimal outcomes. In relationships, it can create misunderstandings and conflicts. For example, if someone says, "I don't trust you because you're always acting shady," they've already assumed the shadiness, making open and honest communication difficult. How to Identify and Counter It Recognizing a begging the question fallacy is the first step to countering it. Look for arguments where the conclusion is also one of the premises. If you spot this, you're likely dealing with a begging the question situation. For example, if someone says, "He's lying because he's not telling the truth," that's a red flag. The argument is just rephrasing its own conclusion as evidence. To counter it, you need to question the assumptions. Ask for evidence that supports the premise or the conclusion. Going back to the earlier example about money and happiness, you could ask, "Do you have evidence that shows buying things leads to long-term happiness?" By asking for evidence, you're challenging the speaker to provide a real argument instead of just assuming their point is true. Related posts: Circular Reasoning (29 Examples + How to Avoid) Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples) Ad Hoc Fallacy (29 Examples + Other Names) Hasty Generalization Fallacy (31 Examples + Similar Names) Slippery Slope Fallacy (29 Examples + Definition) Reference this article: About The Author PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Follow Us On: Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter Psychology Resources Developmental Personality Relationships Psychologists Serial Killers Psychology Tests Personality Quiz Memory Test Depression test Type A/B Personality Test © PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved Privacy Policy | Terms of Use 190 IMAGES 9 Loaded Question Fallacy Examples in Life and Media Comics Loaded Question Critical Thinking Final Revision Image result for loaded question meme What Is The Loaded Question Fallacy? Definition and Examples VIDEO Logics May Destroy REALITY: But HOW? Loaded Question Fallacy Every Logic Fallacy Explained in 7 minutes Complex Question Fallacy Critical Thinking About Coincidences (4/5) Logic and critical thinking question and answer fallacy COMMENTS Loaded Question (29 Examples A loaded question fallacy is a trick question, that contains an assumption or constraint that unfairly influences the answer, leading you toward a particular conclusion. 9 Loaded Question Fallacy Examples in Life and Media Finally, if you want a simple process to counter the logical fallacies and cognitive biases you encounter in life, then follow this 7-step process to develop the critical thinking skills habit. Loaded Questions: What They Are and How to Respond to Them Loaded questions are frequently used in various situations for rhetorical purposes, so it's important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about loaded questions, understand why they are problematic, and see how you can properly respond to them, as well as how you can avoid using them yourself. Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question Describes and gives examples of logical fallacies from the media and everyday life, applying logic to controversial issues in order to improve critical thinking skills. PHIL102: Loaded Question A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (such as, a presumption of guilt). Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, loaded questions are often used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to serve the questioner's agenda. Loaded Questions: Unraveling Hidden Biases in Everyday Dialogue The loaded question, statement, or argument fallacy, often referred to as "begging the question," is a deceptive tactic used in reasoning and argumentation that subtly assumes the truth of a disputed premise within the question or statement itself. It's like a magician's trick, diverting your attention so you don't notice the sleight of hand. Loaded question Loaded question. A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt ). [1] Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. [2] The traditional example is the question "Have you ... 3.4: Fallacies of Ambiguity and Grammatical Analogy Loaded Question Fallacy (Also known as complex question, fallacy of presupposition, trick question) The fallacy of asking a question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something (often questionable) but protects the person asking the question from accusations of false claims or even slander. Loaded Question The Loaded Question fallacy is a logical fallacy in which a question is asked which contains an assumption that the person being asked the question is already in agreement with. Loaded question (Part 4.2 of the Critical Thinking Series (CTS): The Fallacies) Tell me. Why do love the loaded question fallacy so much? Other names: AKA: plurium interrogationum, trick question, complex question Definition: Presenting an unfair, unsupported (or presently unsupported) and inescapable assumption as a question. Caveats: The assumption must be unfair and unsupported—at least initially. PDF College of San Mateo Writing Center The "Loaded Question" fallacy sidetracks an argument by presenting someone with a question whose premises he may not accept, and which are probably damaging his position. Complex Question Fallacy Conclusion: The complex question fallacy poses challenges to effective communication and dialogue by embedding assumptions, biases, and loaded language within interrogations, making it difficult for respondents to provide genuine or accurate responses. By raising awareness of the characteristics and implications of complex questions, individuals can cultivate critical thinking skills, promote ... Begging the Question Fallacy Begging the question fallacy is an argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It is an attempt to prove something is true while simultaneously taking that same thing for granted. This line of reasoning is fallacious because the assumption is not justified by any evidence. Begging the question fallacy example Chapter 9 Informal Fallacies Chapter 9 Informal Fallacies A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. A formal fallacy is a fallacy that can be identified merely by examining the argument's form or using a tool like a truth table. An informal fallacy cannot be detected from the argument's form. There are no foolproof tools for detecting informal fallacies. Fallacies This is why we would like to define fallacies more broadly as violations of the principles of critical thinking, whether or not the mistakes take the form of an argument. The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical thinking. Being familiar with typical fallacies can help us avoid them and help explain other people's ... Critical Thinking C. False Alternatives: This fallacy is committed when an arguer poses a false dichotomy. D. Loaded Question: This fallacy is committed when an arguer asks a question which contains an unwarranted assumption. Your logical fallacy is loaded question You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: Logical Fallacies Most logical fallacies can be spotted by thinking critically. Make sure to ask questions: Is logic at work here or is it simply rhetoric? Does their "proof" actually lead to the conclusion they're proposing? By applying critical thinking, you'll be able to detect logical fallacies in the world around you and prevent yourself from using them as ... What Is The Loaded Question Fallacy? Definition and Examples The loaded question fallacy is a question containing an implicit assumption - that is unverified or controversial. PHIL102 (2018.A.01) Improve your practice of nearly every major discipline, from the physical sciences and medicine to politics, law, and the humanities, by learning how to think critically and reason through problems. Self enrollment (Student) Guests cannot access this course. Begging the Question: How to Identify and Avoid This Common Logical Fallacy The 'Begging the Question' fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of its conclusion. The importance of critical thinking and avoiding logical fallacies in discussions and debates cannot be overstated. What's an example of a loaded question fallacy? A classic example of a loaded question fallacy is "Have you stopped [bad behavior] yet?". For example, "Have you stopped cheating on your taxes yet?". This logical fallacy is characterized by its assumptions. It is designed to get the respondent to either become defensive or agree with an assertion they either don't believe or don't ... Begging the Question Fallacy (29 Examples A begging the question fallacy is an argumentative pitfall where the claim being made is based on premises that assume the claim is true. It's like saying, "I'm right because I'm right." It doesn't give you any new information and certainly doesn't prove the point it's trying to make. That's the essence of circular reasoning, where the argument ... assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech thesis