Yes, definitely! They did not really inquire out of interest, but being convinced in truth of their fallacious doctrine that there is neither afterlife of soul of a deceased man (Acts 23:8 μήτε πνεῦμα), nor the resurrection of bodies (μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν), they wanted to make Christ a laughingstock by their *reductio ad absurdum* argument intertwined in their conceited and smug rhetorical question.

That they did not have a genuine interest is indicated by the immediately preceding passage about Pharisees trying to trap Him by a question. The same day Sadducees come to Him with their question, thus although it is not said anything about their intentions for questioning, the context indicates that Matthew wanted to show how He was a subject of entrapment by both Pharisees and Sadducees. 

Moreover, Christ’s very answer indicates that while asking they were 100% sure that the *reductio ad absurdum* argument they invented was valid, because Christ introduces a dimension which they aren’t even aware of, namely that the post-resurrection life is qualitatively different from usual life where marriages are happening, for in it men shall be like angels and marriage and sexual intercourses will cease (sorry Muslims!). Since the gist of their argument was that it is impossible for God to allow such an unease and awkwardness for the resurrected brothers who had the same woman as a wife, then it is also impossible for God to resurrect them, because the resurrection would necessarily bring about this very unease and awkwardness. Since they did not have in mind that angelic dimension for human life of which the Lord told them, through which dimension their argument was perfectly demolished, then it is indubitable that they were 100% sure that their argument would be invincible and immune from attack of any counter argument. 

Now, if you ask question with a 100% assuredness that your position is immune from being challenged, then your question’s purpose is not a genuine curiosity, but a demonstration of wrongness of a rival position in a form of a question that only feigns curiosity, and since a genuine question should analytically include the aspect of curiosity and ignorance, is not a question at all, but rather a rhetorical devise.

However, when somebody adopts an irony, or its acute form, sarcasm, against any idea or teaching, then this somebody should hold truth, which is the legitimate foundation of the irony and sarcasm. But when you are sarcastic against Truth Himself and His teaching, then, of course you will be crushed and become a laughingstock yourself, as indeed those poor and ill-advised Sadducees became.