Double-Barreled question

Thanks, I will add this one.

It seems very common in opinion polling, where surveyors will ask about multiple issues, or multiple aspects of an issue, at once. For example:

"The proposed new Town Hall should be built taller and wider than the old one." [Agree/Disagree]

What if I think it should be taller, not wider? Or vice-versa? I'm not given the option. So the group that agrees the new Town Hall should be taller (but not wider) is mixed with the group that thinks it should be wider (not taller), which is in turn confused with the group that thinks it should be both. And for those who disagree, there's no telling what they are disagreeing with - they could be saying it should be neither taller nor wider, or something else!

I have a textbook from my doctorate program days on creating surveys. This is one of dozens of flaws to avoid in survey building. The question I ask myself constantly is where do we draw the line between fallacy and something like this? Even with my criteria, there is still some ambiguity. If I add this one, do I add the other dozen or so flaws with survey questions? A question isn't an argument, but as we know, people can be tricked by these and it could be a flawed in reasoning. Maybe the next edition of the book/site will have a new category of "fallacies."

What are some of these other survey “fallacies”?

[To Ed F]

They all have to do with how the questions are worded. It is quite easy to sway opinion and influence answers by careful wording. For example, a survey saying (some high)% of people surveyed say that Biden could be doing a better job. The survey question is "Do you think Biden could be doing a better job?" The answer should be "of course," unless one is convinced he is giving 100% effort 100% of the time. But this high number is misleading as people confuse it with "not good" or even  "poor." This reflects poorly overall on Biden.

If you are interested, this is a good layman's guide to survey design the proper way to ask questions in a poll or survey: https://www.amazon.com/Asking-Questions-Definitive-Questionnaire-Questionnaires/dp/0787970883

Thanks

I do indeed notice that this is called a fallacy, but how is it in any way fallacious to put a conjunction in a question? For instance in programming, if you make a condition with a conjunction, if one of the values are not true, then the program will return False, else it will return true. However if this was a disjunction, if one of the conditions were False but the other one was True, the program would still return True, if someone asks a question with two conditions conjoined and you disagree with one, is it not rational to say, "No" or, "False"??

We are not computers though. We are creatures of emotion as well as logic, and people take advantage of this fact to manipulate others (people are more likely to answer based on the one choice that means the most to them at the expense of agreeing or disagreeing with the other choice when they typically wouldn't). This is one of the key identifiers of a fallacy (fooling the average person).

Wikipedia says that the fallacy "is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer". So I presume that a double barrelled question that allows for any answer is not fallacious?

Again defining "fallacious" as an error in reasoning, the fallacy would be committed by those who are manipulated by the question into giving an answer that they don't logically agree with.

[To Brett]

Also, Wikipedia does make a distinction in calling this an 'informal fallacy'.   

The 'shotgun fallacy" seems to belong under Websters 2b definition: guile, trickery.  That is, if we are to take Webster as a cornerstone.   

I must say though the previous answer which notes that 'tall AND wide' can indeed be answered yes, or no, based on Boolean grounds, but it is perhaps wise to note the possibly deceptive intent of the question asker.   If one answers 'no', it is doubtful they will get a follow-up opportunity to determine if taller OR wider would be acceptable.    It seems it is not proper to infer deceptive intent, so I'm not so sure that without additional context, the example above (taller and wider) can indeed be called a fallacy at all.   

[To Destone]

Working from the understanding of "logical fallacy" presented on this site ( something within an argument that commonly leads to an error in reasoning ), simply putting a conjunction in a question doesn't necessarily rise to the point of a fallacy.  Going back to this site's understanding of fallacy, we need to understand the intention behind adding the conjunction and pay attention to how the conjunction was used.  If the aim was deceive, confuse, or trick another into agreeing with a statement (s)he doesn't agree with, then adding the conjunction needs to be considered a fallacy; if the conjunction simply combines two elements that fit together well, it probably won't deceive and wouldn't be considered a fallacy.

Looking at the example Rationalissimus gave about the building, if the question was simply intended to see if folks favoured a larger building, then asking about "taller and wider" probably wasn't inserted to be devious or to deceptive.  On the other hand, if some future users of the building wanted a taller building of the same width and some wanted a wider building of the same height, responses to the "taller and wider" question could be manipulated.  Respondents wishing only one dimension to change with the other dimension remaining constant would probably answer "No." to the "taller and wider" because they want just one (not  both) dimensions increased.  If the questioner were then to reason, "See, we asked about taller and wider and most people said 'No.'; therefore, the majority of people want the new building to be the same size."  Now, we're getting into fallacy territory ... not because a conjunction was present, but because of how it was used.

Yep, you got it. That's what I was touching on in my example.

[To Destone]

You're correct.

If I say to someone, "Would you like X  and  Y?", if they only wanted  one  of those conjuncts, then it would make sense for them to say "no". 

The problem is in interpreting the 'no' responses. Because while some people may interpret 'no' as meaning 'disagree with at least one', it could also be taken to mean 'disagree with both'. So now 'no' has come to represent three very different things - "X but not  Y", "Y but not X", and "Neither X  nor  Y."

The question-asker would not be able to infer the meaning of the 'no'/'disagree' responses, because the question is double-barrelled and the response options ambiguous. Then, if they had nefarious intent, they could use that to deceive.

So say it's cheaper for the local council to avoid doing any work on the new Town Hall. They bundle the 'taller but not wider', 'wider but not taller' and 'both wider and taller' options into 'agree'. Because many people are split between the first two, they vote no, in addition to those who disagree with any of the proposed changes. The council can then claim that 'most people voted no', and dismiss the proposal to build a new Town Hall. 

(as John Best pointed out though, one could not take nefarious intent as a given. It would have to be argued.)