Wikipedia calls this "Kettle Logic."
This is often legitimately confusing because it's not always a fallacy.
Notably in legal arguments, one may advance several legal theories, some of which may be incompatible if taken conjuctively. However, depending upon how the facts bear out at trial and how the judge wants to shape precedent, one may be selected for ruling and the others rendered moot. Judges can only rule on theories presented to them, so this creates an artificial motive for lawyers to cover all the bases and present several theories.
In general argumentation, if the alternatives are presented as a disjunction there is no fallacy. David Percy provided a good example. He claimed in one case that artificial lighting had to have been used on some particular photograph because no other explanation sufficed. A deluge of alternatives issued from his critics, none of which he had apparently considered. Percy noted that some were incompatible and evaded an answer by noting that his critics "couldn't make up their minds." But in fact the set of unconsidered alternatives was not presented as a conjunction of hypotheses
all of which had to be true. Percy's claim fails if even one of the alternatives is true.
Reasoning with scant data often requires us to set up multiple hypotheses that delineate how to reason one way or another depending on outcomes or uncertainties. These help us plan investigations and also set up a framework for statistical reasoning.
