Loaded Assumption: Definition and Key Features

Loaded Assumption

plural: loaded assumptions
[ローデッド・アサンプション]
noun (logic, rhetoric, debate)

Definition:
A loaded assumption is an unproven premise that is embedded within a statement or argument as if it were already established fact.
It forces the listener to implicitly accept a hidden claim in order to respond, often shifting the burden of proof or framing the opponent’s position unfairly.

Key Features:

Presents a controversial claim as a given.

Functions similarly to a loaded question, but appears in statements or arguments rather than interrogatives.

Complicates rational debate by smuggling in ideological, moral, or factual premises without justification.

Often used in political arguments, moral accusations, or emotionally charged discussions.

Etymology:
Modelled on loaded question (e.g., “Have you stopped lying?”), where the phrasing embeds an unverified presupposition.

Example Sentence:
In the debate, the Marxist commenter’s claim that I was “complicit in harm” unless I accepted his worldview was a classic loaded assumption, because it treated his ideological premise as already proven.

The Loaded Hypothetical: A Rhetorical Trap Built on Hidden Premises

Loaded Hypothetical

plural: loaded hypotheticals
[ローデッド・ハイポセティカル]
noun (rhetoric, logic, debate)

Definition:
A hypothetical question or scenario constructed with built-in assumptions, often biased, contentious, or unproven, that steer the respondent toward a particular conclusion or trap them into conceding something they do not actually believe.
A loaded hypothetical disguises its presuppositions as neutral framing, creating a rhetorical no-win situation for the person answering.

Key Features:

• Embeds hidden premises, for example guilt, motives, or causation.

• Forces the respondent to engage on the questioner’s terms.

• Frequently used in debates, political rhetoric, and bad-faith argumentation.

• Similar to a loaded question, but typically more elaborate and scenario based.

Etymology:
From loaded meaning containing implicit bias or prejudicial assumptions plus hypothetical meaning a proposed scenario used for reasoning.
Modelled on “loaded question,” a classical fallacy in logic.

Examples:

• “If privatizing all schools leaves millions of kids uneducated, would you still support it?”
  (Assumes privatization would necessarily cause mass illiteracy.)

• “If drug addicts have a right to wander into elementary schools, how will you keep children safe?”
  (Smuggles in the false premise that the other person holds such a view.)

• “If your policies inevitably lead to authoritarian collapse, is that a trade-off you are comfortable with?”
  (Implies inevitability without arguing for it.)

Related Terms:
loaded question, complex question fallacy, presupposition, framing, rhetorical trap, straw man, goalpost shifting.

Usage Note:

Loaded hypotheticals often appear when one party wants to avoid addressing the opponent’s actual argument. They function as bait, redirecting the conversation toward emotionally charged but irrelevant terrain, pressuring the respondent into defending claims they never made. 

Analytic Tautologies: Truths That Are True by Definition

 Analytic Tautologies

Pronunciation: アナリティック・トートロジーズ (Anaritikku Tōtorojīzu)
Part of Speech: noun phrase

---

Formal Definition:

Propositions that are true solely by virtue of their meaning and logical form, independent of any empirical verification or observation. Analytic tautologies are considered logically necessary and self-validating, since denying them would result in a contradiction.

They combine two related ideas:

• Analytic truth: statements true by definition (e.g., “All bachelors are unmarried men”).

• Tautology: a logical truth that holds under all interpretations (e.g., “If it’s raining, then it’s raining”).

Examples:

• “All triangles have three sides.”

• “If something is red, then it has a color.”

• “A bachelor is an unmarried man.”

Contrast:

• Synthetic statements depend on facts or experience (e.g., “The sky is blue”).

Etymology:
From analytic (Greek analusis, “a breaking up”) + tautology (Greek tauto, “the same” + logos, “speech”).

---

Plain Language Definition:

A statement that’s true just because of what the words mean, not because of anything you’d have to go check in the real world. You can tell it’s true just by understanding the words.

Examples:

• “All squares have four sides.”

• “A mother is a female parent.”

• “If it’s raining, then it’s raining.”

They’re called analytic because their truth comes from meaning, and tautologies because they can’t ever be false. These kinds of statements don’t tell you anything new; they just make clear what’s already built into the definition of the words.

Argumentation and the Nominative Void: On the Necessity of the Speaking Subject

Nominative Void

Pronunciation: ノミナティヴ・ヴォイド (Nominativu Voido)
Part of Speech: noun phrase

Definition:

1. A theoretical or rhetorical condition in which no identifiable subject or agent is present to assume authorship, responsibility, or perspective within discourse or action.

2. The absence of a speaking or accountable “who” in a communicative or argumentative context; a state where claims, statements, or acts appear to exist without attribution to a person or entity.

Examples:

• Argumentation cannot occur in a nominative void, since every claim presupposes a speaker or standpoint.

• Bureaucratic language often operates within a nominative void, obscuring who is responsible for decisions or actions.

Etymology:
From nominative (Latin nominativus, “pertaining to naming or the subject of a sentence”) + void (Latin vocivus, “empty”).

Philosophical Note:
Used metaphorically, the term critiques depersonalized or abstract discourse by emphasizing that reasoning, justification, and moral accountability always presuppose an identifiable subject. It highlights the impossibility of communication or ethical responsibility in the absence of agency.

Related Terms:

• subjectivity – the condition of being a conscious, responsible agent

• impersonal discourse – language that conceals or diffuses authorship

• accountability gap – the failure to identify who is answerable for an act or claim