Rhetorical means of communicative success using question-answer procedures as an example.

Katunin Aleksandr Viktorovich ORCID: 0000-0002-6408-8924 Junior Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation alexandrkatunin@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent

questioning... because when we doubt, we come to research.,

by exploring, we reach the truth.

Pierre Abelard ^{[6, p. 104]}

It is difficult to overestimate the power and magic of the word, or rather, all the advantages of a person who masterfully masters the art of eloquence. His power lies in the ability to achieve any communicative goal with the help of artfully constructed speech and well-formulated questions. We are sometimes forced to think about the "magical power" of language by such dialogues, as a result of which one interlocutor seems to "magically" get what he wants from his opponent (a certain reaction, action, consent, etc.). In this article, we will look at rhetorical skill from the perspective of question procedures in a logical and rhetorical manner, as well as analyze techniques effective answers to questions.

Aristotle said that philosophy begins with surprise and questioning: "Now and before, surprise motivates people to philosophize, and at first they were surprised by what directly caused perplexity, and then, little by little, moving on in this way, they wondered about something more significant" ^[4]. One of the first and perhaps the most famous masters of questioning was Socrates. His method of "maieutics" – speech midwifery – has become a high-quality tool for dialogue and cognition. In the dialogue "Menon," a young man ignorant of geometry formulates geometric laws in front of the audience after a series of correctly asked questions. The power of rhetorical art, the ability to direct thinking with questions, has a powerful effect on Socrates' interlocutors: "When I listen to Socrates, my heart beats much faster than that of the raging Caribantes, and tears flow from my eyes from his speeches; the same thing, as I see, happens to many others." ^[14]

The formula of Socrates, who said that he knew nothing, but wanted to reflect and look for the right answer, reveals the true cognitive value of question-and-answer procedures for any thinking person. Socrates articulates over and over again what can be called wise ignorance – the knowledge of what exactly a person does not know. To clarify this idea, we can give an example from the work of Kuznetsova N.I., Rozova M.A., Schrader Yu.A. "The object of research is science": "Count Pato played lotto and lost a coat. And Countess Pato did not know that Count Pato was playing bingo and lost his coat. And Count Pato didn't know that Countess Pato didn't know that Count Pato had played bingo and lost a coat. But Countess Pato did not know..." ^{[12, p. 49]}. It is important to note here that the count and the countess "do not know" qualitatively differently, namely: the countess's ignorance consists in the fact that she does not know (that is, she does not have and cannot have a question) about what is happening to the count; the count's ignorance is due to the fact that he he knows exactly what he does not know – a space of ignorance is outlined in front of him, therefore, he can follow the path of eliminating this ignorance through questioning. Since ancient times, philosophy, natural sciences, (as well as anyone who is hungry for knowledge), have used this method to develop, improve and move forward.^[9]

Let's define what exactly we mean by the question. In a logical sense, "A question is a thought that indicates a lack of information about a certain state of affairs" ^{[8, p. 188]}. In a general cultural sense, a question can also show the intellectual level of the interlocutor, highlighting his knowledge or ignorance; direct the interlocutor's attention to a specific problem or task. In modern communication, a question has the following characteristics (attributes):

1. Imperative (here and now let me know)!

2. The goal.

· Cognitive – increasing the amount of knowledge by eliminating the space of ignorance

· Manipulative – influencing the interlocutor not for the sake of knowledge, but for the sake of achieving their communicative goals.

· Other goals are the beginning of acquaintance; maintaining a conversation (for example, a question about the weather).

3. The premise is the basis of the question, the initial knowledge

4. The required knowledge (if the question is correct).

In the field of logic, it is customary to divide questions into correct and incorrect according to the criterion of the truth of the premises of the question being formulated. Since our task is to consider issues not only in a logical way, but also in a rhetorical one, we will consider correctness and incorrectness according to the criterion of a communicative goal. The communicative goal is "the participant's mental anticipation of the desired result of communication, the orientation of consciousness towards such a result." ^[3] Communicative goals are divided into correct (to share information, to receive information without manipulative techniques, to encourage action, to detect and remove false beliefs) and incorrect (to obtain information through manipulation, to encourage the interlocutor to act unfavorably for him, to deceive, etc.). Experienced polemicists resorted to manipulation with the help of questions back in Antiquity: "in the question-and–answer debate of the sophists, the main goal of the questioner was to force the respondent to contradict himself, and the goal of the respondent was to avoid this trap at all costs, regardless of whether his answers would express what he believes to be true or not." ^{[11, pp. 67-68]}

So, if the purpose of the question is to obtain missing information, clarify or supplement existing knowledge, such a question can be considered correct. If the purpose of the question boils down to manipulative influence ("the communicative goal justifies the means" – for more information about the communicative goal, see ^[10]), then such a question can be considered incorrect.

Let's look further at the question-and-answer procedures in a logical and rhetorical way and analyze the methods of answers for successful communication and achieving communicative goals.

I. The logical aspects of the questions.

To formally describe questions in logic, the concept of "interrogative" is used. V.K. Finn offers the following examples of interrogatives: "are questions ("is statement A true?"), which questions ("what are all those x's that satisfy condition P(x)?"), how many questions ("how many x are such that Q(x))?") and why are the questions ("why does the chemical compound x have a narcotic effect?")".^[17] The value of truth or falsity cannot be attributed to the prerogatives, since this can only be done with statements, i.e. narrative sentences. V.G. Denisova draws attention to please note that the question can be embodied not only in the form of an interrogative, but also as a demand or request: "for example, the demand "Tell me the name of Napoleon's nephew" contains a question about the name of a specific person. Questionable sentence: “Could you pass me the butter?"it does not require an answer, it expresses a request to perform some action." ^{[7, c. 189]}

A more complete classification of the types of questions is given by D. Harro ^{[2, pp. 1-2]}:

· Whether is a question. Is three points a good grade or a bad grade?

· Yes-no question. Have you had coffee today?

· Which is the question. What should be the answers to the questions?

· What is the question. What can I cook for breakfast?

· Who is the question. Who invented the radio?

· Why is the question. Why was there a revolution in Russia in 1917?

· An advisory question. What is the best way to distribute bonuses among employees?

· An alternative question. Would you like tea or coffee?

· Hypothetical. If you had a car, would you use it to go on vacation?

· Conditional. If you get a bonus, will you buy me a gift?

· The installer. By saying that there is an environmental disaster on the coast, are you saying that the holiday season will be disrupted this year?

Mastery of these types of questions allows for a better dialogue and to eliminate gaps in knowledge, it is also assumed that the active use of various types of questions in conversation promotes constructive communicative interaction as opposed to manipulative.

Analyzing the logical foundations of the questions, it is important to consider the general characteristics inherent in the questions and included in their logical structure, as well as distinguishing them from other forms of thought. D.V. Zaitsev identifies five such characteristics:

1. The question operator is an indicator that makes it clear that we are dealing with a question. (In questions, intonation is the operator. It is with the help of intonation that we can interpret a judgment without a question word as a question and more accurately determine the logical stress).

2. An utterance form indicating the state of affairs.

3. The presence of the prerequisites of the question is certain knowledge that is already included in the formulation of the question. (For example, the question "Did you like Izmailova's third song" contains the knowledge that Izmailova is a singer and has performed at least three songs).

4. The presence of a question word.

5. The presence of an unknown, which is supposed to be filled out with the help of a question. ^{[8, c.190]}

Both in the field of logic and in the context of high-quality communicative interaction, it is critically important to understand the premise and the formulated unknown of the question (what exactly the person asking the question wants to know). In logic, the logical subject and the logical predicate may not coincide with the grammatical subject and predicate. If the question operator is not clearly expressed, then it may be difficult to interpret the question. Let's take an example: "Has Semenov signed a contract with a major foreign supplier?". If the grammatical subject and predicate are "Semenov" and "concluded", then the logical subject and predicate (subject and predicate) here depend on the logical stress. The logical emphasis on a particular word can be put using intonation, but this is not always pronounced. Moreover, it is almost inexpressible in writing (for example, in business correspondence). Here are some options for changing logical subjects and predicates depending on the logical stress.:

1. The signatory of the contract with major foreign suppliers (S) is Semenov (P). The question is whether Semenov or someone else signed the contract.

2. Semenov (S) is a signatory (P) of an agreement with major foreign suppliers. The crux of the matter is whether he signed the contract or not.

3. The document that Semenov signed with major foreign suppliers(S) is a contract. (P) The essence of the issue in the form of a document (contract, contract, agreement, etc.)

4. The foreign supplier with whom Semenov signed the contract (S) is a large one. (P) The issue is about the scale of the partner.

5. The foreign supplier with whom Semenov signed the contract (S) is a foreign one. (P) The essence of the issue lies in the jurisdiction of the partner.

6. The legal entity or individual with whom Semenov has concluded a contract (S) is a supplier (P) (the essence of the issue lies in the specifics of the services provided) ^{[16, p. 65]}

Thus, several requests for information of a different nature may be hidden in one formulation.

Knowing the logic of questions will also help to avoid a number of communication problems: without a correctly asked question, many people cannot formulate and communicate the information that the interlocutor needs clearly enough; in some cases, people do not know at all what questions to ask the customer, client, partner. When formulating a question and evaluating an addressed question, it is important to consider it from the point of view of the communicative purpose and context (the totality of circumstances in which the dialogue is conducted) of the question.

II. Rhetorical aspects of the questions.

As already mentioned, in a rhetorical way, questions can be used not only for cognition. A polemicist seasoned in communicative battles can use questions to manage a dialogue and achieve his communicative goals regardless of their ethics. Evaluating the question in a rhetorical way, it is certainly important to understand the explicit premise of the question, but it is equally important to find out if there are hidden premises in the question, and what is the communicative purpose of the interlocutor. For example, in a question from a random passerby, "what time is it?" the explicit premise is the need to find out the time, the hidden one is to find out the cost of the watch.

In some cases, questions are asked not in order to get certain information, to learn something, but, for example, in order to dominate a conversation, to win an argument, or, as Plutarch noted: "We often ask a question, not needing an answer, but trying to hear the voice and ingratiate ourselves with the other person, wanting to draw them into a conversation." ^{[6, p. 106]} Also, by asking a question, you can seize the initiative, humiliate, gain approval, direct the dialogue in the right direction, encourage action, rebuke, shame, exert pressure, etc. – questions are a qualitative tool of manipulators.

Let's look at a number of examples and contexts of incorrect application of questions.

A question that leads the discussion into another thematic space, in which the interlocutor either understands worse, or a dialogue on this topic is categorically unprofitable for the interlocutor. For example, in a discussion about the company's new prospects, ask the head: "Have you been in contact with employees for a long time? How do you explain their difficult working conditions and unpaid overwork?" Even if these judgments are incorrect, this kind of question prompts the manager to deviate from the main topic and start making excuses, thereby weakening his position in the dialogue.

The question is the motivation for action. A formulation of the question in which the answer is not important, because the very form of the question contains an insistent recommendation to take action.: "Colleagues, are you meeting the deadlines for submitting the report?", "Are you specifically not responding to the partner's letter?" - the need to speed up the preparation of the report and respond to the partner is formulated in question form.

A question with an incomplete list of alternatives. A direct answer to such a question either puts the interlocutor at a disadvantage, or encourages him to justify himself, which is also a weak position: "Dear, will you take me yourself or call a taxi?", "Are you incompetent enough to understand this, or are you deliberately sabotaging the work?", "Can you help me with the preparation of the final version is the report today or tomorrow?" In these examples, the range of options is much wider than the author of the questions formulated.

The issue is the manipulation of the premise. A classic textbook example of this issue: "Have you stopped drinking cognac in the morning?" It contains a judgment that is accepted as true regardless of the answer option. "Why did you fake a faint at a court hearing?", "Are you deliberately sabotaging the conclusion of a partnership agreement with a foreign partner?" – in this case, the speaker wants to categorically convince the audience that drinking cognac, fainting at a court hearing, or the failure to conclude a partnership agreement was an indisputable fact.

An attack with questions. This technique can be used in several cases. Firstly, to disrupt the discussion when rational arguments run out; "attacking with questions" goes well with the "driving to absurdity" technique: "Did you fire two people today? Will you close the departments tomorrow? Maybe we should liquidate the company right away and let all the employees go around the world?" Secondly, consistently asked questions can be useful for finding gaps in knowledge or the strength of the interlocutor's argument. Schopenhauer noted: "When an opponent does not give any direct answer to a question or an argument, but evades it by means of an indirect answer, or asks a question in turn, or in some completely different way, irrelevant to the case, while at the same time trying to skip to some other topic of conversation, then this is precisely the best proof that we accidentally touched on his weak side, otherwise that he deliberately keeps silent about it. Therefore, we must always press this point and not let the enemy out, even when we ourselves do not yet know exactly what this weak side that we have touched on is. ^{[18, p. 77]} This technique is also associated with intercepting the initiative to conduct a dialogue, which, in turn, is associated with dominance in dispute and the establishment of dispute rules.

The question is a trick. A situation in which the interlocutor has more information than he initially shows, so it is especially important to anticipate his communicative goal and understand the context of the dialogue. Having secured the opponent's answers, such an interlocutor can use them against him, but in a different thematic field, in order to denigrate, undermine the listeners' trust and discredit his further argumentation. In Bredemeier's "Black Rhetoric" we can see such an example of dialogue.:

"Are you considered an attentive driver?

- Yes, of course.

- Someone who drives so many kilometers without a single accident undoubtedly drives very carefully, don't you agree?

- Yes, and at the same time, the ability to anticipate critical situations is developing.

- Do you probably drive more than 50,000 km?

- On average, even more: from 80,000 to 90,000 km.

-And the fact that you pollute the environment more and more with each new kilometer, apparently, you don't care at all?" ^{[5, p. 190]} If you imagine that this dialogue is taking place in the context of an international environmental forum, probably this person will no longer be given the floor.

The question is a hypothesis. This question is asked in order to get information in cases where it is not possible to ask directly, since a direct question would be considered incorrect, unethical, or intruding into the personal space of the interlocutor. Instead of asking, "What did you discuss with the head of the company?" you can ask: "Did you come back so depressed from the meeting, did they really discuss the layoffs?" After such a question is posed, there is a chance that the interlocutor will give the necessary information: "No, not at all. We were just talking about financial incentives for employees before the new year. So, unfortunately, he won't be here."

Rhetorical questions in a manipulative way can be used provocatively to confuse the interlocutor, to put him in an awkward situation. For example, "How long can you be so naive?" is a kind of statement and rebuke enclosed in the form of a question. Or in a political context: "How much longer are we going to tolerate his indifference to the people? But he is supposed to protect and protect the interests of citizens!"

The issue is discrediting. The task of such questions is to throw the interlocutor off balance, thus undermining his authority among the listeners.: "After you failed a project and you were fired from your job, did anyone invite you for an interview?" These types of questions go well with the manipulation of "A bad person is a bad argument" – if the interlocutor is discredited, disgraced, or his credibility is undermined, then any of his arguments, even very strong and well–formulated ones, may no longer be perceived by listeners as sufficiently weighty and significant. ^{[13, pp. 47-51]}

The question is manipulation of ignorance. This technique works when the interlocutor is trying to hide or disguise his ignorance, because he is afraid to admit his ignorance. As an example, we can cite a well-known provocation.:

- Have you listened to Tchaikovsky's eighth symphony?

"Of course!

"How so?" He only wrote six.

This kind of technique is often used by the hosts of entertainment and political shows.

With the help of questions, manipulations of feelings can be implemented: guilt, pity, fear, justice, reliability, etc. The purpose of such questions, as a rule, is to encourage the interlocutor to take actions that are unfavorable for him, but desirable for the manipulator, or to change the opinion and beliefs of the interlocutor: "Son, when are you getting married? Do you want me to die without seeing my grandchildren?"; "Don't you really want to help me with the report? Otherwise, I won't see my children today"; "Aren't you afraid to talk to me in that tone?"; "As a fair person, can you stay with me after work to finish the presentation of the project?".

The use of questions for the purpose of manipulation is associated with an ethical problem: is it possible (and if so, how) to manipulate questions out of good intentions? Most likely, this question can only be answered by the person asking it. Of course, if the opponent is weak and inexperienced in polemical battles, he will lose in an argument with a person who is familiar with the techniques described above and who regularly uses them. However, knowledge and practical training of such rhetorical techniques can significantly help in countering experienced manipulators.

III. The methodology of responses

A similar classification used in the case of questions (the distinction between correct and incorrect) can be applied to the answers. The concept of an answer (direct answer) is important in many theories of questions. By an answer, researchers most often mean "a part of a language or a semantic object that, as Belknap and Steele put it, "completely, but precisely completely, answers the question." A sentence or a judgment does not have to be true to be a direct answer."^[1] In the framework of this study, we understand the response in a broader sense as a reciprocal verbal interaction that contributes to the achievement of a set communicative goal. Moreover, both correct and incorrect answers can be given to both correct and manipulative questions.

Before we analyze the possible answers to the above types of questions, we will outline general recommendations for responding procedures based on modern research and extensive personal experience of the author's public speaking.:

· When evaluating a question, it is critically important to analyze the interlocutor's communicative goal and the context of the question, i.e. what exactly is he trying to achieve with this question and under what conditions. It often happens that a person who asks a sharp or provocative question does not want to know the answer to it at all, but rather wants to speak up and get "airtime" so that they will also pay attention and appreciate it.

· If the question uses general or ambiguous terms, ask a clarifying question and define the concepts used by the interlocutor. Clarifying questions also help to specify the direction of the answer, if the question is quite general, it will additionally allow you to gain the time needed to formulate an answer.

· It is not necessary to answer the question right away (here the politeness that we were taught from an early age may be superfluous). You can take a break and think about the answer for 10-20 seconds, or if the context allows you to postpone the answer to the end of the discussion. A young Steve Jobs was once asked: "What is the most important thing that you personally learned at Apple that you are currently using at Next?" In front of a full audience, he calmly thought about the answer for more than twenty seconds.

If you are asked a question to which you do not know the answer, it is much better for your image to admit your lack of information than to create the illusion of multiple knowledge.

· You can slowly voice the question yourself in order to better understand it and at the same time have time to think about the answer. Also, in some cases, it makes sense to reformulate the question in your own words and clarify with the interlocutor whether this question was correctly understood.

· Be sure to rate the question you were asked: "What an interesting question!", "It was unexpected to get exactly such a question!", "What a tricky question you asked!" - even a negative assessment of the question is better than complete indifference to what you heard.

Now let's look at the response procedures in a logical and rhetorical way. There are different possible answers for logically correct questions asked for cognitive purposes. The correct answer is considered to be the answer that completely removes the ambiguity formulated in the question: "In what year did Socrates' retrial take place, at which he was acquitted?" - "Socrates' retrial took place in 2012." There are answers that only partially remove the uncertainty: "The retrial of Socrates took place in the 21st century." Such answers are considered correct, however, depending on the context of the conversation, they may not be correct, i.e. in some cases such an answer may turn out to be unsatisfactory.

Tulchinsky G.L. identifies several variants of incorrect answers: irrelevant answers (replacing the premise) "The retrial of Socrates took place when all the participants in the trial appeared in the courtroom"; tautological answers – which in no way remove the uncertainty formulated in the question: "The main thing is that the retrial of Socrates took place!"; contradictory answers – contradict the premise the question: "The retrial of Socrates took place about ten years ago, although I do not believe it"; redundant – the information provided goes far beyond the context of the question: "Just think! Socrates was acquitted by the same small margin of votes as he was convicted almost two and a half thousand years ago!" ^{[16, p. 154]}

The use of incorrect answers to correct questions is used in cases where you cannot or do not want to fully answer the formulated question. Using such answers creates the illusion of an answer (tautological), takes the conversation in a different direction (redundant, irrelevant), or adds mystery and unpredictability to you as a speaker in the eyes of listeners (contradictory).

Now let's look at how it is possible to correctly or in some cases effectively answer these types of manipulative questions.:

A question that diverts the discussion to another thematic space can be reflected by a counter-question that returns the discussion to its previous course.: "Do you want to discuss gossip, or will we come to a common opinion about the company's development prospects?" In this case, it is important not to be provoked and not to start making excuses. Any excuse in communication is a weak position. It is also quite difficult to draw the line between justifying and explaining one's position.

Question: the urge to take action can be ignored in some contexts if you have the situation under control, but the action itself will inevitably happen and is in your best interests. If you are being pushed to do something that is not in your best interests, you can rationalize this question with a counter question: "What result and why do you expect by asking this question?"

A question with an incomplete list of alternatives. In this case, it is necessary to rationalize the discussion by directly pointing out the logical error and manipulation. A direct question to the interlocutor is effective: "Are you consciously trying to manipulate now, or are you, like me, worried about the result, so you ask in this form?"

The issue is the manipulation of the premise. It's quite difficult to work with these kinds of questions, because a lot depends on the context. If the conversation takes place in private, then you can directly point out to the interlocutor that the wording of his question is incorrect. However, if the dialogue takes place in the presence of an audience, then almost any answer can sound like an excuse, which puts you in a weak position. In this case, you can use such a technique as bringing to the point of absurdity using a series of questions.: "Do I drink cognac in the morning? So I probably practice banditry at night, too? Maybe I'm the leader of a city organized crime group? According to you, all the problems in the district are my fault! It's a good thing I didn't go international!"

The attack with questions is also neutralized by rationalization and returning the discussion to a logical course: "Which question would you like me to start answering?", "Which of the listed questions is your priority? I would have started my answer with him," "What goal are you pursuing by asking me so many questions?"

The trick question is quite insidious. The most reliable way is to calculate the space of variations in the development of the discussion based on the questions asked by the opponent, but this is not always possible. Therefore, when an interlocutor begins to formulate consecutive questions, when this happens in a context with a large number of listeners, it is better not to give direct and specific answers, but to be content with correct but incomplete answers.

The hypothesis question is easily recognized with sufficient focus of attention. When answering such a question, it is important not to provide redundant information. You can limit yourself to a rhetorical exclamation: "No, no, come on!", "Oh! What was in the director's office remains in the director's office." Formally, the dialogue continued, and its further development is possible only through the formulation of direct questions, which the interlocutor most likely will not decide.

Manipulative rhetorical questions can be ignored in a number of contexts, since the main expectation of a manipulator is that you will agree to his manipulation scenario and try to explain yourself, justify yourself, feel insecure or awkward. In cases where such questions cannot be ignored, you can reduce everything to a joke (the audience will laugh and forget) or reduce it to logic.: "What do you think my naivety is?" "Based on what facts did you come to this conclusion?"

The discrediting question, like many other manipulative questions, is offset by a return to the logical field: "What does what you are saying have to do with what we are currently discussing?" It is also important to remain calm and emotionally restrained, because such questions are primarily aimed at making you lose your temper and depriving you of a communicative advantage.

Question: manipulation of ignorance is very brazen and bold on the part of the opponent. In this case, it's not a shame to admit that you might not know something (that's human nature). You can ask the other person to share their intimate knowledge with you and finally thank them: "Thank you, thanks to you, I know more now." This way you will not fall for manipulation and will gain the public's favor if the discussion is public.

Manipulation of feelings can be overcome primarily through the ability to recognize these manipulations, then a very effective technique is a polite, confident refusal to the manipulator. Note how calmly Professor Preobrazhensky resists manipulation to pity and shame by representatives of the house committee, who reinforce the request to buy magazines for the benefit of German children: "No, I won't take it. "But why do you refuse?" "I don't want to." - Don't you sympathize with the children of Germany? "I'm sorry. - Ah! Is it a pity for fifty kopecks? - No. - So why is that? "I don't want to." - Do you know, Professor, if you weren't a European luminary and they wouldn't have stood up for you in the most outrageous way, you should have been arrested! "For what?" - And you don't like the proletariat! "Yes, I don't like the proletariat."^[15]

Thus, we see that most manipulative issues are leveled by appealing to logic and rationalizing the dialogue. Once again, it must be emphasized that an important skill in countering manipulative influence is also the ability to restrain one's emotions. If your opponent angered you, he probably beat you.

Incorrect questions can also be countered with incorrect techniques. In this case, it is important to keep in mind that if you started answering the question, it means that you agreed with its wording and its premises. If the classic answer is not included in your plans, you need to deal with incorrect (but no less effective) methods of countering incorrect questions. Their variety is incredibly great, let's list the most popular of them.:

· Almost any incorrect question can be reduced to a joke. If a discussion with an opponent takes place in front of an audience, it is important to understand the sense of humor of the listeners and, reducing a manipulative question to a joke, rely on this sense of humor.

· Substitute the thesis of the question and give an answer to the already substituted thesis. For example, you are asked: "Have you stopped drinking cognac in the morning?" As an answer, you can use: "Friends, I stopped eating in the evenings! Just look at how much weight I've lost!"

· Narrow down the question and answer the narrow part (a special case of thesis substitution).

· To attack the interlocutor with meaningful logical questions until he formulates the correct question.

· Evaluate the voiced question and replace it with your own. For example, if you are asked a Question that leads the discussion to another thematic space, you can retort: "Your question is very important, but it is secondary in comparison with ..." Then you propose your question and answer it.

· In some cases, you can use a technique such as reframing. For example, if someone asks you about the company's new prospects.: "Have you been in contact with employees for a long time? How do you explain their difficult working conditions and unpaid overwork?" you can answer: "I fully trust my team and give all colleagues complete freedom of action."

· Separately, you can use the technique of mirroring the question. To get a more detailed answer and new information, you need to select 1-3 keywords from your opponent's question and voice them with a questioning intonation. Then, be sure to pause for at least 5 seconds so that the other person breaks the silence. The intention should be, "help me understand." This kind of technique is an ethical substitute for the direct question "what do you mean by that?"

This article outlines the most popular techniques for conducting a dialogue from the perspective of question-and-answer procedures. With knowledge of such techniques, it is possible to recognize manipulative influence and not succumb to it. Having worked out these rhetorical means of communicative success in practice, you can significantly succeed in conducting discussions and disputes. Thus, systematization of such knowledge and honing the skills of its application in different contexts is methodologically difficult, but it is highly relevant and allows solving a number of practical problems in a professional environment and personal interaction.