Bad Moves entry

Bad Moves: Fallacy of the complex question

By Julian Baggini

"Why are we so obsessed with what other people think of us? Why are we so concerned to fit in? Why do we submit so readily to the tyranny of the 'they'?"
Giles Fraser, the Guardian 20 Dec 2003

The most common example given to illustrate the fallacy of the complex question is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Such a question asks one thing while assuming a second, when it is just this assumption which needs to be established. First we need to know whether you did beat your wife. Only if it turns out that you did should we concern ourselves with when you stopped doing so.

The great trick of a complex question is that any direct answer to it implicitly endorses the assumption, whereas any failure to offer a direct answer can look like an evasion. However, although in the heat of an argument it can throw someone off track, in this example, and in another favourite - "Why did you steal the money?" - it doesn't take much thought to see the trick and simply respond, "I never started beating her" or "I didn't steal the money".

The fallacy is harder to spot when people use a complex question, not to make an accusation, but to frame a discussion or enquiry. In the example I quote from Giles Fraser, he opens his article with three questions, all of which assume something that he has not established and which, on reflection, may well not be true. How many of us are really "obsessed with what other people think of us"? Most people are at least concerned about how they are seen by others, but I would suggest it is a minority who are obsessed by it. Yet Fraser's question assumes that we - he and his entire readership - are all obsessed by the opinions of others. Similarly, many of us are not "so concerned to fit in" and refuse to "submit so readily to the tyranny of the 'they'." His questions encourage us simply to assume that we are all highly preoccupied with what other people think and only think about why this should be so.

This kind of debate framing, which assumes a state of affairs which may not pertain, is remarkably common in the media. Often there is some flimsy basis offered, such as a report or single opinion poll. But then we are thrown straight into a debate: Why are people rejecting marriage? Why aren't British men romantic? Why can't actresses over forty get work? Why is the government destroying the BBC? How much freedom should we be prepared to sacrifice for security?

Because the assumptions being made in such cases are often very plausible or reflect conventional wisdom, it is much easier to fall for the fallacy than it is when a false accusation against us is being smuggled in. The remedy, however, is the same. We need to be aware of what assumptions are being made by a question and challenge them if we think they are unfounded.

Which leaves me with one final puzzle: Why do we fall for the fallacy of the complex question so easily?

Click here so you don't miss an update!