A dilemma is a form of argument in which a reasoner is presented with two or more alternatives, each of which allegedly leads to an undesirable or unavoidable conclusion. In logical terminology, a dilemma is a compound argument that combines a disjunctive premise with conditional premises so that, whichever alternative is accepted, the same or similarly problematic conclusion follows. Classical logic recognizes two principal forms: the constructive dilemma and the destructive dilemma. A constructive dilemma has the general form: if P then Q; if R then S; either P or R; therefore either Q or S. A destructive dilemma proceeds as: if P then Q; if R then S; either not Q or not S; therefore either not P or not R. While these forms are valid when their premises are true, in practical reasoning dilemmas often function rhetorically to force acceptance of a conclusion by presenting only limited options. The refutation of a dilemma therefore involves showing that the argument fails either because its structure is misapplied or because its premises are defective. One common method of refutation is known as escaping between the horns of the dilemma. The “horns” represent the alternatives offered in the disjunctive premise. To escape between them, one demonstrates that the alternatives are not exhaustive; there exists a third possibility not considered by the arguer. Since the disjunction is incomplete, the argument loses its force. For example, if someone argues, “Either you support this policy or you are against progress; if you support it, you waste resources; if you