The obvious interpretation of ‘a neutral question’ is one where the questioner has no vested interest in the answer. The questioner will acknowledge the answer which develops with inclination and abstain from looking to weight the result of a request for assumptions or expectations. So, it is a detached, impersonal, open question. All true questions are neutral. If a question is not neutral, then it is not really a question, but rather a statement, or a judgment, disguised as a question. For example, when a mother asks her daughter who has done something she disapproves of, and the mother asks “What on earth were you thinking?” she must be using a question to scold her daughter, rather than genuinely being curious to known what process led …show more content…
The main reason for an independent Scotland was that Scotland would have total control of their own affairs and that the revenue from Scotland’s offshore oil fields would sustain their country’s economy. Taking Emotions as a ways of knowing. Human beings are emotional in nature. Any optimistic or positive thought or act catches our attention first. In the Scotland issue I am using the same surgery example. When the government for health had used 10% fatality rate were less likely to give the go-ahead than those who were told it had a 90% survival rate. This shows us that the human brain would choose the positive outcome. The second way of knowing is reasoning. Through reasoning I would like to point out that though words of the question for the election were changed, it meant the exact same thing. It was a simple, single line question. So there isn’t even something hard for the people to comprehend. So the change in words would have meant absolutely no change in its sense in any way. There isn’t any higher order of ambiguity or anything. So there by reasoning changing the question dint make any difference in the supposed to be