To answer a question with a question is a well-known polemic trick that has long been used in conducting discussions for specific purposes. A number of opponents use this technique intuitively, but more often they resort to it intentionally. Why is this needed?
It is possible to answer a question with a question, and in some cases it is even necessary. There is an opinion that using this technique is indecent. After all, educated people should give only direct answers to questions. But this is a problem of education, not polemic. And smart speakers, it’s precisely this correct line — not to answer a question with a question — that they use to deftly seize the initiative in a conversation. It is known that it is the one who asks more questions that controls the dialogue and rules over the interlocutor. This “ question- to-question” technique can be quite useful for seizing the initiative in responsible and life-changing negotiations, and even more so if you understand that they are trying to manipulate and impose your opinion in the conversation. The best defense is attack. And here it is already possible to apply another effective trick - "attack by questions." It is always more difficult and responsible to answer than to ask, because in a dispute it is important to ask questions more often, to provoke an interlocutor for reasoning. The goal is, again, to seize the initiative and put the opponent in a difficult position. This technique is quite convenient in another situation. By answering a question with a question, you can tactfully, gently and witty get away from the need for an answer, take your interlocutor in a completely different direction, and even puzzle him. Thus, not wanting to reveal his unwillingness to give a report, the polemicist puts a counter question mark on the question asked. An example from N.V. Gogol’s Dead Souls: ““ How much did you buy your soul from Plyushkin? ”Sobakevich whispered to him.“ Why did they attribute Sparrow? ”Chichikov told him in response to this. This technique is loved by both the great debaters - seekers of truth, and professional journalists. If you don’t feed you bread - let me argue, then a “ question to the question” is your method. The interlocutor quickly opens up and can even give uncomfortable answers for yourself. If you do not want to be answered so evasively, form your questions directly, clearly and specifically. In a serious conversation, this will eliminate possible ambiguity.