A 15th-century tax trick designed every answer to end at the same conclusion
Henry VII's tax collector, Archbishop John Morton, reasoned that if a nobleman lived lavishly, he obviously had money to spare for the king's new tax. If instead he lived frugally, he must have savings stashed away — so he had money to spare too. Either way, he was found to owe the tax. What's wrong with an argument built so that two opposite answers lead to the exact same unwelcome conclusion?
Reveal the answer
Nothing is technically wrong with the logic — a 'Morton's Fork' is a dilemma deliberately rigged so every branch forces the same outcome, making the appearance of choice fake. It's less a flaw to spot and more a trap to recognize: whenever someone offers you 'two' options that quietly end at the same place, you're being forked. The term has stuck in English for over 500 years, named directly after Morton's tax-collecting trick.
— Wikipedia, Morton's Fork — England, c. 1487, under Henry VII