A snuck premise is a controversial and unsupported assumption that someone includes in their argument as if it’s necessarily true. For example, if someone says “the problem with this immoral law is that it will have negative consequences”, the premise that the law is immoral can be considered snuck, if it’s controversial and unsupported by evidence.
Snuck premises can be considered a type of fallacious presuppositions, because they’re implicitly assumed to be true as part of an argument, in a way that’s logically flawed because it’s unsupported. People often use snuck premises for rhetorical purposes, usually to frame discussions in a way that suits their goals, by making it appear as if a controversial part of their argument is true, without fulfilling their associated burden of proof.
Because snuck premises are common and can shape discussions in a problematic way, it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about snuck premises, and see how you can respond to their use effectively.
Examples of snuck premises
In the argument “the reason why most people don’t support this legislation is that it’s impractical”, the premise that most people don’t support the legislation can be considered to be snuck, if it’s controversial and unsupported by evidence, as can the premise that the legislation is impractical.
Similarly, in the statement “someone like you should know that it’s wrong to use this term”, the premise that it’s wrong to use the term in question can be considered snuck, if it’s controversial and unsupported by evidence.
When people use snuck premises in this manner, they may use language that reinforces the validity of the snuck premise, for example by saying “someone like you should know that it’s clearly wrong to use this term” or “it’s so obvious that using this term is wrong, so I can’t see why you’re doing so”. Furthermore, people may hide their snuck premises by using other fallacious rhetorical techniques, like equivocation, circumlocution, red herrings, and appeals to emotions.
In addition, snuck premises can play a key part in other logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques, like loaded questions. An example of this is the question “do you actually support this terrible politician?”, since it presupposed the assumption that the politician in question is terrible, which the person being questioned might disagree with. Here, the snuck premise frames the discussion, and can make it harder for the person being asked the question to respond, because if they reply “yes” to indicate their support for the politician, then their answer will inadvertently seem to suggest that they think the politician is terrible.
Another example of a loaded question with a snuck premise is “have you accepted the fact that most scientific studies don’t support this theory?”. Here, the snuck premise is that most scientific studies don’t support the theory in question, which again may be controversial and unsupported by evidence. If the respondent replies “no”, because they believe that this claim is wrong, then their answer will inadvertently suggest that they agree with this snuck premise, and that they simply refuse to accept it.
How to respond to a snuck premise
You can respond to the use of a snuck premise in several ways:
- Point it out. For example, you can explain what the specific snuck premise was, why it can be considered to be a snuck premise, and why it’s problematic.
- Ask the other person to defend it. For example, you can ask the other person to either provide evidence in support of the snuck premise, or modify their argument to avoid it.
- Challenge it. For example, you can explain what evidence there is that the snuck premise is wrong.
- Re-frame the original argument and respond to the non-snuck part. For example, if someone asks you a loaded question that relies on a snuck premise, you can repeat their question while explicitly excluding the snuck part, and then reply to that version of the question.
- Focus on presenting your own side. For example, instead of responding directly to a fallacious argument that’s based on a snuck premise, you can present your own stance on the topic.
Which of these techniques you should use depends on factors like how the snuck premise was used and what are your goals in responding to it. This means, for example, that if someone uses the snuck premise as part of a loaded question, you might choose to respond to it in a different way than if they used the snuck premise as part of an argument.
In addition, when responding to snuck premises, you should keep the following caveats in mind:
- Not every premise is a snuck premise, and not every presupposition is fallacious. Rather, arguments often contain various premises and presuppositions that are entirely reasonable, for example because they’re accepted by all people in the conversation and are supported by evidence.
- Snuck premises aren’t necessarily false, and the conclusions of an argument that contains a snuck premise aren’t necessarily false either. Rather, the use of a snuck premise simply means that the argument that contains it is logically flawed.
Overall, to respond to a snuck premise, you can point it out, ask the other person to defend it, challenge it directly, respond to the non-snuck part of the argument, or focus on presenting your own stance instead. When doing this, keep in mind that not all premises are snuck, not every presupposition is fallacious, snuck premises aren’t necessarily false, and the conclusions of an argument with a snuck premise aren’t necessarily false either.
How to avoid using snuck premises
To avoid using snuck premises, you should identify the premises that your argument relies on, and ask yourself whether they’re (1) uncontroversial, in the sense that the other discussants are likely to agree with them, and (2) supported by evidence within the context of the argument.
When doing this, pay attention to any premises that are implicitly included in your argument, which means that your argument relies on them even if you don’t state them explicitly. In addition, if you’re unsure about whether a certain premise is snuck or not, you can ask other discussants or a relevant third party whether they consider a specific premise in your argument to be reasonable, and if not then why.
If you realize that one of your premises could be a snuck one, you can do one of the following:
- Make the premise explicit and provide support for it. For example, you can say “my argument assumes that X is true, and this assumption is based on…”. This allows you to avoid the use of fallacious reasoning, while retaining the premise and the key point of the original argument.
- Modify your argument to make the use of the premise reasonable. For example, you can state that you’re assuming that the premise in question is true, for the sake of the argument, but that you accept that this premise is controversial and unsupported by evidence.
- Retract the premise. For example, you can say “I was assuming that X is true, but I don’t really have good evidence to support it, so let’s ignore that part of the argument”. Often, this will mean that you’ll also have to modify your argument accordingly.
Overall, to avoid using snuck premises, you should identify the premises that your argument uses, and make sure that they’re uncontroversial and supported by evidence. If you realize that you’re using a snuck premise, you can either make it explicit and provide support for it, modify your argument to make the use of the premise reasonable, or retract the premise.
History of snuck premises
The concept that underlies snuck premises and fallacious presuppositions has been discussed in various contexts, and relates to rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies like:
- Loaded questions, which are trick questions that presuppose at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with.
- Persuasive definitions, which are a type of fallacious definition where someone presents their preferred definition for something as if it was an accepted fact, in a situation where that’s not the case.
- Begging the question, which is a logical fallacy that occurs when a premise of an argument depends on its conclusion or is equivalent to it.
- Ipse dixit (Latin for “He himself said”), which is an argument that’s made without any evidence besides the opinion of an authority figure.
However, the current conceptualization of snuck premises, together with its current name, is relatively modern and informal. It was popularized in a video titled “7 Reasons Ben Shapiro Is So Dominant In Debates”, published on YouTube on 5-Nov-2018, by the channel “Charisma on Command”. Starting at the 6-minute mark of the video, the narrator attributes the use of snuck premises as an offensive strategy in debates to American political commentator Ben Shapiro, and describes this technique as introducing the exact point of contention (or a general contended point) as a given, through the clever use of language. As the video states:
“…he makes a point that again his opponents might find disagreeable, but they won’t really know where to poke the hole, because they adopted his premise as soon as he said it.”
This article (originally published on 25-Jun-2023), expands on the initial uses of the term, to provide a more formal and comprehensive overview of this concept.
Summary and conclusions
- A snuck premise is a controversial and unsupported assumption that someone includes in their argument as if it’s necessarily true.
- For example, if someone says “the problem with this immoral law is that it will have negative consequences”, the premise that the law is immoral can be considered snuck, if it’s controversial and unsupported by evidence.
- To respond to a snuck premise, you can point it out, ask the other person to defend it, challenge it directly, respond to the non-snuck part of the argument, or focus on presenting your own stance instead.
- When responding to a snuck premise, keep in mind that not all premises are snuck, not every presupposition is fallacious, snuck premises aren’t necessarily false, and the conclusions of an argument with a snuck premise aren’t necessarily false either.
- To avoid using snuck premises, you should identify the premises that your argument uses, and make sure that they’re uncontroversial and supported by evidence; if you realize that you’re using a snuck premise, you can either make it explicit and provide support for it, modify your argument to make the use of the premise reasonable, or retract the premise.