@SCynic1 was explaining the double-whammy cross-examination technique, when you pose an "either/or" to the witness. Sometimes it is devastating. Here is an example from Wellman's classic text, re Rufus Coate, a legendary NYC attorney

Mr. Choate: "When you ventured into the realm of speculations in Wall Street I presume you contemplated the possibility of the market going against you, did you not?"

Witness: "Well, no, Mr. Choate, I went into Wall Street to make money, not to lose it"

Mr. Choate: "Quite so, sir; but you will admit, will you not, that sometimes the stock market goes contrary to expectations?"

Witness: "Oh, yes, I suppose it does."

Mr. Choate:"You say the bonds were not your own property, but your wife's?"

Witness: "Yes, sir."

Mr. Choate. "And you say that she did not lend them to you for purposes of speculation, or even know you had possession of them?"
Witness. "Yes, sir."

Mr. Choate."You even admit that when you deposited the bonds with your broker as collateral against your stock speculations, you did not acquaint him with the fact that they were not your own property?"

Witness."I did not mention whose property they were, sir."

Mr. Choate (in his inimitable style). "Well, sir, in the event of the market going against you and your collateral being sold to meet your losses, whom did you intend to cheat, your broker or your wife?"

It’s a great example because of the lead up. As a general rule you should never ask an open ended question in XX unless prosecuting. Choate, however, sets the witness up effectively before pouncing.