37-39) to analyze cases thought to be associated with what was traditionally called the fallacy of many questions. An example is the question "Have you stopped stealing funds from your clients?" The difficulty in evaluating the funds-stealing question is that it is context-dependent, and so depends on the dialogue it is part of and on presuppositions that may have been incurred as commitments prior to the part of the dialogue where the question was posed.
These early uses of profiles of dialogue can be made into a generalizable method that has a special structure as a method of fault diagnosis more broadly useful for argumentation studies by extending the previous way of dealing the fallacy of many questions. How this is done can be illustrated using the funds-stealing example.
It is this difference that enables an explanation of the fallacy of many questions to be given.
The 3 Responses Dialogue Rule is also obviously closely related to the funds-stealing question taken as our example of the fallacy of many questions analyzed by the profiles method.
For example, it could represent one of the traditional fallacies, such as the fallacy of many questions or the fallacy of begging the question (circular argumentation).