Loaded question

{{logicnav}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with [[loaded language]] or a [[leading question]].}}
{{cquote|'''Springfield Police Department webpage:''' If you've committed a crime and you want to confess, click "YES". Otherwise, click "NO".<br>
'''[Homer clicks "NO"]'''<br>
'''Springfield Police Department webpage:''' You have chosen "NO", meaning you've ''committed'' a crime, but don't want to ''confess''. A paddywagon is now speeding to your home!|||''The Simpsons''<ref>http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Computer_Wore_Menace_Shoes</ref>}}

A '''loaded question''' is a [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when statements or questions are designed to confuse listeners into tacitly accepting something (which isn't obviously clear in the question) as true.

==Alternate names==
*complex question
*ill-posed question
*fallacy of interrogation
*fallacy of presupposition
*fallacy of interrogative presupposition
*fallacy of many questions
*''plurium interrogationum''
*surfeit of questions
*trick question

==Forms==
Loaded questions come in two forms.  

===Trick questions===
Trick questions force the respondent to either admit to an opinion or fact they do not share, deny a factual premise, and/or {{wpl|Self-incrimination|make themself look like a scumbag|.}} The most famous example of a trick question like this is: "Have you stopped [[Domestic violence|beating your wife]]?" — an instinctive answer of "yes" or "no" means saying that you have a wife who you have beaten in the past. It requires a more considered answer of "I've never been married" or "I've never beaten my wife" to respond without accepting its implication.<ref group=note>The correct answer is "mu", a Japanese word that more or less can be translated as "null", or in this case, "[[Not even wrong|this question has no appropriate answer]]".</ref>

An example of forced opinion: "So, you are going to vote for that lazy Obama?" If one says yes, they appear to concede that Obama is lazy, if they say no, they are implying they will vote for his rival. Another option would be to reply in a way that implicitly rejects the loaded language by substituting more neutral language: "I am going to vote for Obama."

An example of forced fact: "So you are one of those [[Atheists hate god|god-denying]] [[Evolutionism|evolutionists]]?" The interrogee may accept [[evolution]], but also could be, say, a [[Christian]].

===Leading questions===
[[Leading question]]s supply the answer in the question, but the following examples all consist of a statement followed by a question, invoking arguments of association such as: "Smart people have been shown to like Obama.  Do you like Obama?"  "It's been proven that good and righteous Christians such as you like banana cream pie; do you like banana cream pie?"  While these examples are obvious, if the topic is in an area one is unfamiliar with, and the "associations" use what appear to be [[argument from authority|expert opinions]], one may well be moved to agree without even realizing what one has done.  [[Romer v. Evans | Amendment 2]] in Colorado was a prime example of this.<ref group=note>In 1992, Colorado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that prohibited anti-discrimination measures protecting LBGT people. Four years later, the US Supreme Court threw it out in [[Romer v. Evans]].</ref>  Few people understood the language of the bill, including many people in the legal profession.  [[Push poll|Polls]] would say to people "Experts analyzing this bill agree that it protects workers like yourself from being the victim of special rights groups.  Workers all over the state are saying they feel threatened by this move, since it means someone can be hired who isn't qualified simply due to these special rights.  Knowing that, and understanding how hard it is today to find a job, are you with us in our support of Amendment 2?"

==Examples==
*"Have you admitted that evolution is not supported by the evidence?"
*:This question contains in it the assumption that evolution is not supported by the evidence, so answering either 'yes' or 'no' to that question could still be taken to imply that evolution is unsupported.
*[[What proof or evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct?]]
*[[Were you there?]]
*[[Do you want to be descended from a monkey?]]
*[[Atheists hate God|Why don't you want to believe in God?]]
*:This question contains the assumption that people only believe or disbelieve in God because they want to and not because they are swayed by the evidence (or lack thereof).
*[[Flat Earth|Do you believe that you're on a wet pear]] that [[Geocentrism|spins 1000mph whilst going around the sun at 60,000mph]] held together by a magical force that you can't feel?
*:This question basically frames the heliocentric model to be as [[Appeal to ridicule|ridiculous as possible]] and often at times blatantly [[Straw man|misrepresents]] it.
* [[TERF glossary#The Staniland Question|Given that everyone agrees a biological adult human female should have the right to undress in public in front of a biological girl, do you think a biological adult human male with a penis should also be able to undress in front of a biological girl?]]

==See also==
*[[Just asking questions]]
*[[Presupposition]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Complex question}}
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#ComplexQuestion Complex Question], {{wpl|Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}
*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html Loaded Question], [[Fallacy Files]]
*[http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/cq.htm Complex Question], Stephen Downes
*[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question Your logical fallacy is loaded question], [[YLFI]]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20170217003712/https://action.donaldjtrump.com/survey/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/ This survey] is perhaps the most textbook case

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|1|80%}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Informal fallacies]]
[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]

Categories: Informal fallacies, Fallacious arguments