Begging the question

Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true.

Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of dialectical argument he discusses in his Topics, book VIII: a formalized debate in which the defending party asserts a thesis that the attacking party must attempt to refute by asking yes-or-no questions and deducing some inconsistency between the responses and the original thesis.

The stylized dialectical exchanges Aristotle discusses in the Topics included rules for scoring the debate, and one important issue was precisely the matter of asking for the initial thing—which included not just making the actual thesis adopted by the answerer into a question, but also making a question out of a sentence that was too close to that thesis (for example, PA II 16).

The Latin phrase comes from the Greek τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι (tò en archêi aiteîsthai 'asking the original point')[11] in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi 64b28–65a26: Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) [in] failing to demonstrate the required proposition.

But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent utilizing its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior.

When the fallacy involves only a single variable, it is sometimes called a hysteron proteron[14][15][16] (Greek for 'later earlier'), a rhetorical device, as in the statement: Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality.

[17]Reading this sentence, the only thing one can learn is a new word (soporific) that refers to a more common action (inducing sleep); it does not explain why opium causes that effect.

Isn't it obvious that unrestricted commercial relations will bestow on all sections of this nation the benefits which result when there is an unimpeded flow of goods between countries?

Linguistic variations in syntax, sentence structure, and the literary device may conceal it, as may other factors involved in an argument's delivery.

[17] One could also "bring forth a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it the very same proposition stated in words of Norman origin",[20] as here: To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.

"[21]When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it circulus in probando 'reasoning in a circle',[14][22] or more commonly, circular reasoning.

[28][29] Another related fallacy is ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion: an argument that fails to address the issue in question, but appears to do so.