Plurium interrogationum , which one can also invite to multiply the questions or to complicate the questions, is a fallacious Raisonnement which aims at misleading. It is made by somebody who puts a question which presupposes a Proposition which neither was proven nor accepted by the person who must answer the question. This technique is often used in manner Rhétorique to limit the possible answers and to direct them towards what the interrogative one wants to hear. The following question is the standard example of the plurium interrogatium : did you stop beating your wife? . That the person answers yes or not, she implicitly admits to have a woman, and to have beaten it in the past.
Thus, this fact is presupposed by the question, and if it were not accepted by the front interlocutor, the question is unsuitable and the proven logical fraud. Let us note that one can answer by driven this question. This fraud is contextual: the fact that the question presupposes something is not in oneself a fraud. It is only when one such presupposition is not accepted by the person to whom one put the question which the argument becomes fallacious.
Implicit form
One of the form of this fraud is presented as follows: something is implied, and thus not explicitly expressed, and formulated in the form of question. For example in the question Mr. Jones with it a brother in the army? , nothing indicates that it has of them indeed one, but it is implied that there are at least indications which would tend to prove that it has one of them, or the question would not be put. From this manner the interrogative one is protected from the charge to make false assertions, but tries all the same to trap questioned.
To be effective, the question must suppose something of sufficiently extraordinary not to be not posed without proof or indication. For example the " question; do you have a brother? " is sufficiently banal to be posed naively, without the interlocutor not presupposing whatever knowledge that it is in the questioner.
Other example
Popular in the parents:
do you Love more your mother, your father, or the pigs feet?
the answer admits implicitly here that an order preferably must be established.
It is true this lie?
That the person answers yes or not, she implicitly admits to have lied.
Defense
A common manner to answer this argument is not simply not to answer by " oui" or by " non" , but by a sentence which explains the context, for example " supplements; I do not have a femme" or " I never beat my femme". What removes all the ambiguity of the question, and thus invalidates the tactics. The interrogative ones can however at this point show questioned to dodge the question. The best tactics, confronted with this type of tactic, thus seem nothing to answer, or to point the not-relevance of the question.
See too
Varieties resulting from this fallacious reasoning:- Double cognitive constraint
- Dissonance
| Random links: | -756 | To rough-hew vanities (novel) | Revelers mobile | Gornja Sokolovica | County of Yiyang (Jiangxi) |