A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you
have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:
- "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
- "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.
Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:
- "Have you ever beaten your wife?"
- "If so, are you still doing so?"
In this way,
1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question
2 does not arise.
Exposure:
Since a question is not an
argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a
fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the
Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an
actual buyer.
