The fallacy I chose was the loaded question fallacy, and it means presenting a question in a way that assumes something not yet proven or unfairly biases the respondent. This fallacy can manipulate or pressure someone into accepting an unwarranted assumption or conceding a point without proper justification.
Short text
In an interrogation the detective looked at the suspect and ask. “Why did you leave the scene of the crime so hastily?” he asked
The suspect caught off guard by the question responded. ” I didn’t realize I was in a hurry,” stammering, his eyes nervously staring around the room
The detective noted nervousness. “What made you so anxious to get away?” he says
The suspect hesitated looking nerveous ” I don’t know,” he mumbled, avoiding eye contact.
With each loaded question, the detectibve guids the conversation, causing doubt and leaving to a confession .
Explanation: A loaded question was used in an interrogative settingthat contains an assumption or presupposition, designed to lead the person responding towards a particular answer. In the text the detective used loaded questions to make them feel a guilt or suggest suspicious behavior and manipulates the conversation to his advantage, ultimately leading to the suspect’s confession.
2 thoughts on “joan contreras conversation 7”
Your analysis shows how the detective asks tricky questions to make the suspect feel guilty, like “Why did you leave so quickly?” This makes the suspect nervous and eventually confess. It’s a clear example of how loaded questions can lead someone to admit something, even if they didn’t do it.
Hi Joan ,
This is a great example. The loaded question fallacy is used the most especially for criminal cases and cross examinations in court rooms. The whole point is to make you nervous and to get you to admit more information and possibly have you admit something you didn’t even do.