As always, I appreciate your viewpoint and constructive criticism. I think what touches a nerve here is that in taking this "test" an active JW will be forced to either:
a. Deny objective reality
b. Admit that offical church literature in the postwar era has misrepresented the developmental timeline of present doctrines.
The strong conflict between 'a.' and 'b.' is obviously the whole point and basis for a parallel with the novel, Nineteen Eighty-four. The JW parent organization certainly does not physically torture people into a denial of objective reality like the character O'Brien did with Winston Smith, but whether or not an element of mental coercion strong enough to induce a similar level of denial is a open question.
I think this year's Bible drama presented to JW's at their convention further legitmized that question because the allegorical lesson certainly appears to be that JW's are expected to agree with what they are told even if their senses tell them otherwise.
Hence the test: Will a JW agree to an untrue statement themselves rather than admit that their organization has? An honest JW would ostensibly not want to do either, so there is an automatic internal conflict where they are forced to choose which of the two options is more important to them.
But does that conflict constitute the logcial fallacy of interrogation (aka Plurium Interrogationum, fallacy of complex question, etc.) which occurs in your example? That fallacy occurs when an unproven assumption is built into the question in such a way that any possible answer will constitute agreement with it.
When did you stop falsifying your income taxes?
Are you going to admit you're a thief?
Did your professor realize you cheated on the final?
It's neutralized by breaking apart the two propositions implicit in the question in a way which affords the person a chance to deny the unproven proposition:
Did you cheat on the final exam?
If so, did your professor realize it?
In the test I proposed, there is no unproven proposition to deny. The developmental timeline of current doctrines is a matter of record and the conflict between the statements is therefore a matter of simple math.
I understand perfectly well why an active JW would be tempted to deflect the issue into a question of whether it was wrong to teach the dates 1799, 1874, 1878 in the first place. It's a very human defense mechanism. But that's not the issue here and I've been clear on that. The problem is not that these dates were once taught, the problem is that modern literature sometimes asserts that what JW's believe today is what the Bible Students believed right from the start; which for all intents and purposes, is a claim that the older dates were never taught at all.
You can find examples of the same phenomenon in almost any human organization. The differences between Joseph Smith's handwritten account of his first vision and the version that is presented to potential converts today is a good example from another religion.
(I've also pointed out in other threads how xJW's are falling into the same trap themselves by repeating misstatments that strengthen their side of argument over and over to the point where they become "Common knowledge" The idea that blood fractions weren't allowed until the year 2000 or that Russell started with 1914 and counted backwards to 606 B.C. are two good examples. )