Loaded Question

In plain terms

A loaded question hides a claim inside a question. To answer it at all, you have to accept the buried claim first. "Have you stopped cutting corners on safety?" traps the answerer: yes means you used to cut corners, no means you still do. There's no way to answer the question as asked without granting that you cut corners, which was never established.

The textbook version is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The presupposition does the damage; the question mark is camouflage.

Why it's fallacious

A fair question leaves the answerer free to accept or reject its premises. A loaded question removes that freedom by folding a contested claim into the setup, so that any direct answer ratifies the claim. It's a way of asserting something while pretending only to ask, and of putting the target on the defensive about a point they never agreed to.

It's sometimes called the complex question fallacy, because it bundles two questions ("did you do X?" and "when did you stop?") and demands an answer to the second before the first is settled.

Canonical example

"Why is your department so resistant to accountability?"

The question presupposes that the department is resistant to accountability, which is the very thing in dispute. Answer "because..." and you've conceded the resistance. Answer "we're not resistant" and you sound evasive, like you're dodging the "why." The framing is built so that engaging with it grants the premise. The honest move, refusing the premise, looks like a non-answer.

Counter-example (not a fallacy)

"Your report concludes the launch should be delayed. What's the main reason?"

This isn't a loaded question. It presupposes something, that the report recommends delay, but that something is established and uncontested; it's right there in the report. Questions always carry presuppositions. The fallacy only appears when the presupposition is contested and is being smuggled past the answerer rather than argued for.

The line: is the buried assumption already agreed on, or is it the very thing in dispute?

How to fix it

If you've been linked here, check whether your question takes for granted something the other side hasn't accepted. The fix is to split it in two: establish the premise as its own claim first ("I think your department resists accountability, and here's why"), then ask the follow-up only if the premise holds. That's a fair argument. A question that forces agreement before it can be answered is a rhetorical trap, and a sharp listener will refuse it.

If you're on the receiving end, reject the premise before answering: "That question assumes we're resistant to accountability, which isn't true. If you want to make that case, make it, and I'll respond." Don't answer inside a frame you don't accept.