Term for an explanation that seems plausible simply because it's more complex than a more widely accepted belief

Solution 1:

This sounds like ignoratio elenchi, or missing the point. Since your specific example substitutes misdirection for a candid answer, it is purposefully missing the point.

To the question “Why turn off cell phones?” the answer “It interferes with the plane and so is potentially dangerous” is false, and knowingly so, but that is the correct answer to “Why can’t I fire a gun in the plane,” so it is a right answer to a different question.

What isn’t directly to your point is about simplicity trumping complexity in that the candid answer would take more effort or would be more subject to debate or more difficult to understand than using a lie to cultivate the inference that if you use a cell phone everyone would die in a plane crash.

So the implicit intimidation behind the simple answer is a manipulation which uses fear rather than reason to gain acquiescence. So one question would be “Is the answer to the question true or false?” If true, it is not ignoratio enelchi in any case. Using a simple true answer, with more extensive justifications behind it, would simply be a simplification.

In your example it is false. A further question might be “Is the simple answer manipulative, or based on fear, or just wrong?” The airline might have a motive for having the flight attendant give a wrong answer, so the term for the airline would be different than the flight attendant.

I’m not sure how specific you want your term. I know I’m still not exactly on point, because ignoratio elenchi does not address complexity, but maybe this helps. Probably way more writing than you wanted.