Every question admits in principle the possibility of negation

Evidence

By an internal negation we understand such a relation between two beings that the one which is denied to the other qualifies the other at the heart of its essence—by absence. The negation becomes then a bond of essential being since at least one of the beings on which it depends is such that it points toward the other, that it carries the other in its heart as an absence. Nevertheless it is clear that this type of negation can not be applied to being-in-itself. By nature it belongs to the for-itself. Only the for-itself can be determined in its being by a being which it is not. And if the internal negation can appear in the world—as when we say of a pearl that it is false, of a fruit that it is not ripe, of an egg that it is not fresh, etc.—it is by the for-itself that it comes into the world—like negation in general. Knowing belongs to the for-itself alone, for the reason that only the for-itself can appear to itself as not being what it knows. And as here appearance and being are one—since the for-itself has to be its appearance—we must conclude that the for-itself includes within its being the being of the object which it is not inasmuch as the for-itself puts its own being into question as not being the being of the object. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 574 (#expands, via linked claim)

The fallacy of the compound (or complex or multiple) question occurs when an argument is phrased as a single question rather than the two or more separate questions actually in the interrogatory. Several questions are combined in such a manner as to place the person who responds in a self-incriminating position. When the question is complex and all aspects are to be denied, they should be denied individually. To require a single answer to the final part of the complex question (Now, answer yes or no!) often may lead to the unwarranted assumption of the truth of another matter or conclusion hidden in the question. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1154 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Internal negation belongs exclusively to the for-itself, never to being-in-itself — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 574; Negation cannot touch the plenitude of being; nothingness is denied at being’s heart; Requiring a single yes-or-no answer to a compound question smuggles in an unproven assumption — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1154 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Internal negation belongs exclusively to the for-itself, never to being-in-itself #expands (0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 574
• Negation cannot touch the plenitude of being; nothingness is denied at being’s heart #qualifies (0.75)
• Requiring a single yes-or-no answer to a compound question smuggles in an unproven assumption #expands (0.72) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1154