View source for Begging the question

{{Short description|Logic founded on unproven premises}}
{{not to be confused with|Calling the question}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2019}}

In classical [[rhetoric]] and [[logic]], '''begging the question''' or '''assuming the conclusion''' ([[Latin language|Latin]]: {{lang|la|petītiō principiī}}) is an [[informal fallacy]] that occurs when an argument's premises assume the [[truth]] of the [[Logical consequence|conclusion]]. 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. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of [[circular reasoning]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#CircularReasoning | title=Fallacies | publisher=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | date=27 March 2003 | access-date=April 5, 2012 | author=Dowden, Bradley | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009055518/http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#CircularReasoning | archive-date=9 October 2014 }}</ref><ref name="Herrick248">Herrick (2000) 248.</ref>

Some examples are: 
* “Wool sweaters are better than nylon jackets as fall attire because wool sweaters have higher wool content".<ref>{{cite web|title=beg the question|work=Cornell Law School|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/beg_the_question|access-date=May 31, 2025}}</ref>
** The claim here is that wool sweaters are better than nylon jackets as fall attire. But the claim's justification begs the question, because it ''presupposes'' that wool is better than nylon. An [[essentialism|essentialist]] analysis of this claim observes that anything made of wool intrinsically has more "wool content" than anything not made of wool, giving the claim weak [[explanatory power]] for wool's superiority to nylon.
* "Drugs are illegal, so they must be bad for you. Therefore, we ought not legalize drugs, because they are bad for you."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Walton |first1=Douglas |title=Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach |date=2008 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-88617-8 |page= 64ff}}</ref>

The phrase "beg the question" is often used to mean "strongly prompt the question", a usage distinct from that in logic.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=beg the question |encyclopedia=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language |year=2022 |publisher=HarperCollins |url=https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=beg |access-date=November 10, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=beg the question |encyclopedia=Merriam-Webster |year=2024 |publisher=Merriam-Webster, Inc |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg |access-date=November 10, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=beg the question |encyclopedia=Oxford Learner’s Dictionary |year=2024 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/beg |access-date=November 10, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=beg the question |encyclopedia=Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary |year=2024 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beg-the-question |access-date=November 10, 2024 }}</ref> This usage is criticized for diluting the original logical meaning of the phrase.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Marsh |first1=David |title=Begging the question |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2010/may/24/begging-the-question-mind-your-language |website=The Guardian |date=24 May 2010 |access-date=17 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Begging the Question: How to Use It Correctly |website=Writer’s Digest |publisher=Active Interest Media |date=February 27, 2023 |url=https://www.writersdigest.com/write-better-fiction/begging-the-question-how-to-use-it-correctly |access-date=October 21, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=How to Use It: Begs the Question |website=Center for Teaching Excellence, Principia College |publisher=Principia College |date=March 18, 2021 |url=https://content.principia.edu/teaching-excellence/how-to-use-it-begs-the-question/ |access-date=October 21, 2025}}</ref>

== History ==
[[File:Aristotle Altemps Inv8575.jpg|thumb|upright|Bust of [[Aristotle]], whose ''[[Prior Analytics]]'' contained an early discussion of this fallacy]]

The original phrase used by [[Aristotle]] from which ''begging the question'' descends is {{lang|grc|τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αἰτεῖν}}, or sometimes {{lang|grc|ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖν}}, {{gloss|asking for the initial thing}}. Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of [[dialectic]]al argument he discusses in his ''[[Topics (Aristotle)|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.

In this stylized form of debate, the proposition that the answerer undertakes to defend is called {{gloss|the initial thing}} ({{langx|grc|τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ}}) and one of the rules of the debate is that the questioner cannot simply ask (beg) for it {{Clarify|date=March 2024}} (that would be trivial and uninteresting). Aristotle discusses this in ''[[Sophistical Refutations]]'' and in ''[[Prior Analytics]]'' book II, (64b, 34–65a 9, for circular reasoning see 57b, 18–59b, 1).

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, ''[[Prior Analytics|PA]]'' II 16).

The term was translated into English from [[Latin]] in the 16th century. The Latin version, {{lang|la|petitio principii}} {{gloss|asking for the starting point}}, can be interpreted in different ways. {{lang|la|Petitio}} (from {{lang|la|peto}}), in the [[Postclassical Era|post-classical]] context in which the phrase arose, means {{gloss|assuming}} or {{gloss|postulating}}, but in the older classical sense means {{gloss|petition}}, {{gloss|request}} or {{gloss|beseeching}}.<ref name="Liberman">{{cite web|last=Liberman|first=Mark|title='Begging the question': we have answers|url=http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290|work=Language Log|access-date=12 January 2012|author-link=Mark Liberman|date=29 April 2010}}</ref><ref name="Kretzmann1988">{{cite book |first1=N. |last1=Kretzmann |first2=E. |last2=Stump |year=1988 |title=Logic and the Philosophy of Language |series=The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts |volume=1 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0521280631 |lccn=87030542 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oh-vE6T_WIcC&pg=PA374 |page=374 |quote=One sort of {{lang|la|petitio}} is common, and another is dialectical; but common {{lang|la|petitio}} is not relevant here. A dialectical {{lang|la|petitio}} is an expression that insists that in the disputation some act must be performed with regard to the statable thing [at issue]. For example, "I require ({{lang|la|peto}}) you to respond affirmatively to 'God exists,{{'"}} and the like. And {{lang|la|petitio}} obligates [the respondent] to perform an action with regard to the {{lang|la|obligatum}}, while {{lang|la|positio}} obligates [him] only to maintain [the {{lang|la|obligatum}}]; and in this way {{lang|la|petitio}} and {{lang|la|positio}} differ.}}</ref> {{lang|la|Principii}}, [[genitive case|genitive]] of {{lang|la|principium}}, means {{gloss|beginning}}, {{gloss|basis}} or {{gloss|premise}} (of an argument). Literally {{lang|la|petitio principii}} means {{gloss|assuming the premise}} or {{gloss|assuming the original point}}.

The Latin phrase comes from the Greek {{lang|grc|τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι}} ({{lang|grc-Latn|tò en archêi aiteîsthai}} {{gloss|asking the original point}})<ref name="Schreiber2003">{{cite book |first=S.G. |last=Schreiber |year=2003 |title=Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations |series=SUNY Series in Ancient Greek Philosophy |publisher=State University of New York Press |isbn=978-0791456590 |lccn=2002030968 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AICfsOKXhJIC&pg=PA106 |pages=99, 106, 214 |quote=It hardly needs pointing out that such circular arguments are logically unassailable. The importance of the ''Prior Analytics'' introduction to the fallacy is that it places the error in a thoroughly epistemic context. For Aristotle, some reasoning of the form "p because p" is acceptable, namely, in cases where p is self-justifying. In other cases, the same (logical) reasoning commits the error of Begging the Question. Distinguishing self-evident from non-self-evident claims is a notorious crux in the history of philosophy. Aristotle's antidote to the subjectivism that threatens always to debilitate such decisions is his belief in a natural order of epistemic justification and the recognition that it takes special (dialectical) training to make that natural order also known to us.}}</ref> in Aristotle's ''Prior Analytics'' II xvi 64b28–65a26:

{{blockquote|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. Now begging the question is none of these.{{nbsp}}[...] If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.{{nbsp}}... [B]egging the question is proving what is not self-evidently employing itself{{nbsp}}... either because identical predicates belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to identical subjects.|Aristotle|Hugh Tredennick (trans.) ''Prior Analytics''}}

Aristotle's distinction between [[apodictic]] science and other forms of nondemonstrative knowledge rests on an [[epistemology]] and [[metaphysics]] wherein appropriate [[first principles]] become apparent to the trained dialectician:
{{blockquote|Aristotle's advice in ''[[Sophistical Refutations|S.E.]]'' 27 for resolving fallacies of Begging the Question is brief. If one realizes that one is being asked to concede the original point, one should refuse to do so, even if the point being asked is a reputable belief. On the other hand, if one fails to realize that one has conceded the point at issue and the questioner uses the concession to produce the apparent refutation, then one should turn the tables on the sophistical opponent by oneself pointing out the fallacy committed. In dialectical exchange, it is a worse mistake to be caught asking for the original point than to have inadvertently granted such a request. The answerer in such a position has failed to detect when different utterances mean the same thing. The questioner, if he did not realize he was asking the original point, has committed the same error. But if he has knowingly asked for the original point, then he reveals himself to be ontologically confused: he has mistaken what is non-self-explanatory (known through other things) to be something self-explanatory (known through itself). In pointing this out to the false reasoner, one is not just pointing out a tactical psychological misjudgment by the questioner. It is not simply that the questioner falsely thought that the original point is placed under the guise of a semantic equivalent, or a logical equivalent, or a covering universal, or divided up into exhaustive parts, would be more persuasive to the answerer. Rather, the questioner falsely thought that a non-self-explanatory fact about the world was an explanatory first principle. For Aristotle, that certain facts are self-explanatory while others are not is not a reflection solely of the cognitive abilities of humans. It is primarily a reflection of the structure of noncognitive reality. In short, a successful resolution of such a fallacy requires a firm grasp of the correct explanatory powers of things. Without a knowledge of which things are self-explanatory and which are not the reasoner is liable to find a question-begging argument persuasive.<ref name="Schreiber2003"/>|Scott Gregory Schreiber|''Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations''}}

[[Thomas Fowler (Oxford)|Thomas Fowler]] believed that {{lang|la|petitio principii}} would be more properly called {{lang|la|petitio quæsiti}}, which is literally {{gloss|begging the question}}.<ref name="Fowler145">Fowler, Thomas (1887). [https://books.google.com/books?id=WdtLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA145 ''The Elements of Deductive Logic, Ninth Edition'']  (p. 145). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.</ref>

== Definition ==
To {{gloss|beg the question}} (also called {{lang|la|petitio principii}}) is to attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself restates or presupposes the claim.<ref name="Welton279">Welton (1905), 279., "{{lang|la|Petitio principii}} is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."</ref> It is an attempt to prove a proposition while simultaneously taking the proposition for granted.

When the fallacy involves only a single variable, it is sometimes called a ''[[hysteron proteron]]''<ref name="Davies572">Davies (1915), 572.</ref><ref name="Welton280">Welton (1905), 280–282.</ref><ref>In [[Molière]]'s ''[[The Imaginary Invalid|Le Malade imaginaire]]'', a quack "answers" the question of "Why does [[opium]] cause sleep?" with "Because of its [[Hypnotic|soporific]] power." In the original: {{lang|fr|Mihi a docto doctore / Demandatur causam et rationem quare / Opium facit dormire. / A quoi respondeo, / Quia est in eo / Vertus dormitiva, / Cujus est natura / Sensus assoupire.}} [http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_Malade_imaginaire_-_3%C3%A8me_interm%C3%A8de ''Le Malade imaginaire'' in French Wikisource]</ref> (Greek for {{gloss|later earlier}}), a [[rhetoric]]al device, as in the statement:
{{blockquote|Opium induces sleep because it has a <abbr title{{=}}"sleep-inducing">[[wikt:soporific|''soporific'']]</abbr> quality.<ref name="Welton281">Welton (1905), 281.</ref>}}

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. A sentence that explains why opium often induces sleep (or the same, why opium has soporific quality) is

{{blockquote|[[Opium]] often induces sleep because it contains [[morphine]], an opioid which activates [[μ-opioid receptors]] in the central nervous system, a type of inhibitory receptor whose activation is often sufficient to induce sleep.}}

where the specific physiological processes are omitted for simplicity. A less obvious example from ''Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap'' by S. Morris Engel:

{{blockquote|Free trade will be good for this country. The reason is patently clear. 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?<ref>{{Cite book|last=Engel|first=S. Morris|title=Fallacies and pitfalls of language : the language trap|date=1994|publisher=Dover Publications|others=S. Morris Engel|isbn=0-486-28274-0|location=New York|oclc=30671266}}</ref>}}

This form of the fallacy may not be immediately obvious. Linguistic variations in syntax, sentence structure, and the literary device may conceal it, as may other factors involved in an argument's delivery. It may take the form of an unstated premise which is essential but not identical to the conclusion, or is "controversial or questionable for the same reasons that typically might lead someone to question the conclusion":<ref>Kahane and Cavender (2005), 60.</ref>

{{blockquote|...{{nbsp}}[S]eldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises{{nbsp}}... Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and is then placed in the premises.|Paul Herrick<ref name="Herrick248"/>}}

For example, one can obscure the fallacy by first making a statement in concrete terms, then attempting to pass off an identical statement, delivered in abstract terms, as evidence for the original.<ref name="Welton281" /> 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 language|Norman]] origin",<ref>Gibson (1908), 291.</ref> as here:

{{blockquote|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."<ref>[[Richard Whately]], ''Elements of Logic'' (1826) quoted in Gibson (1908), 291.</ref>}}

When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it {{lang|la|circulus in probando}} {{gloss|reasoning in a circle}},<ref name="Davies572" /><ref name="Dowden">Bradley Dowden, [http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#BeggingtheQuestion "Fallacies"] in ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy''.</ref> or more commonly, ''circular reasoning''.

Begging the question is usually not considered a [[formal fallacy]] (an [[argument]] that is defective because it uses an incorrect [[Rule of inference|deductive step]]). Rather, it is usually a type of [[informal fallacy]] that is [[Validity (logic)|logically valid]] but unpersuasive, in that it fails to prove anything other than what is already assumed.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia| encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |title=Fallacy |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/200836/fallacy#ref1102387 |quote=Strictly speaking, {{lang|la|petitio principii}} is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.}}</ref><ref name="Walton">{{cite book |title=Plausible argument in everyday conversation |publisher=SUNY Press |author=Walton, Douglas |year=1992 |pages=206–207 |isbn=978-0791411575 |quote=Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.}}</ref><ref name="Petitio Principii">The reason {{lang|la|petitio principii}} is considered a fallacy is not that the [[inference]] is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can be deceptive.  A statement cannot prove itself. A premiss{{sic}} must have a different source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth  from that of the conclusion: Lander University, [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html "Petitio Principii"].</ref> There are some exceptions wherein it may be considered a [[formal fallacy]], such as in non-reflexive logics.

== Related fallacies ==
{{main|Circular reasoning|Complex question|Ignoratio elenchi}}
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of [[circular reasoning]] ({{lang|la|circulus in probando}}), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Dowden |first=Bradley |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#CircularReasoning |title=Fallacies |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=27 March 2003 |access-date=5 April 2012}}</ref> The individual components of a circular argument can be logically [[Validity (logic)|valid]] because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However, circular reasoning is not persuasive because a listener who doubts the conclusion also doubts the premise that leads to it.<ref>{{cite book |title=Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Logic |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |year=1998 |page=205 |isbn=978-0070466494 |last1=Nolt |first1=John Eric |last2=Rohatyn |first2=Dennis |last3=Varzi |first3=Achille}}</ref>

Begging the question is similar to the ''[[complex question]]'' (also known as ''trick question'' or ''fallacy of many questions''): a question that, to be valid, requires the truth of another question that has not been established. For example, "Which color dress is Mary wearing?" may be fallacious because it presupposes that Mary is wearing a dress. Unless it has previously been established that her outfit is a dress, the question is fallacious because she could be wearing pants instead.<ref name="Meyer1988">{{cite book |first=M. |last=Meyer |year=1988 |title=Questions and Questioning |series=Foundations of Communication |publisher=W. de Gruyter |isbn=978-3110106800 |lccn=lc88025603 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nwo5qXTCJewC&pg=PA198 |pages=198–199}}</ref><ref name="Walton1989">{{cite book |first=D.N. |last=Walton |year=1989 |title=Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0521379250 |lccn=88030762 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kswimguc5uYC&pg=PA36 |pages=36–37}}</ref>

Another related fallacy is ''[[ignoratio elenchi]]'' or ''irrelevant conclusion'': an argument that fails to address the issue in question, but appears to do so. An example might be a situation where A and B are debating whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his position with an argument that the law {{em|ought}} to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of {{lang|la|ignoratio elenchi}}.<ref>H.W. Fowler, ''[[A Dictionary of Modern English Usage]]''. Entry for {{lang|la|ignoratio elenchi}}.</ref>

== Vernacular ==
In [[vernacular]] English,<ref name="Garner1995">{{cite book |first=B.A. |last=Garner |year=1995 |title=Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage |series=Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0195142365 |lccn=95003863 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=35dZpfMmxqsC&pg=PA101 |page=101 |quote=''begging the question'' does not mean "evading the issue" or "inviting the obvious questions," as some mistakenly believe. The proper meaning of begging the question is "basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself." The formal name for this logical fallacy is {{lang|la|petitio principii}}. Following are two classic examples: "Reasonable men are those who think and reason intelligently." ''Patterson v. Nutter'', 7 A. 273, 275 (Me. 1886). (This statement begs the question, "What does it mean to think and reason intelligently?")/ "Life begins at conception! [Fn.: 'Conception is defined as the beginning of life.']" ''Davis v. Davis'', unreported opinion (Cir. Tenn. Eq. 1989). (The "proof"—or the definition—is circular.)}}</ref><ref name="HoughtonMifflin2005">{{cite book |author=Houghton Mifflin Company |year=2005 |title=The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style |isbn=978-0618604999 |lccn=2005016513 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA56 |page=56|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |quote=Sorting out exactly what ''beg the question'' means, however, is not always easy—especially in constructions such as ''beg the question of whether'' and ''beg the question of how'', where the door is opened to more than one question.{{nbsp}}[...] But we can easily substitute ''evade the question'' or even ''raise the question'', and the sentence will be clear, even though it violates the traditional usage rule.}}</ref><ref>Brians, Common Errors in English Usage: Online Edition (full text of book: 2nd Edition, November 2008, William, James & Company) [http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html] (accessed 1 July 2011)</ref><ref>Follett (1966), 228; Kilpatrick (1997); Martin (2002), 71; Safire (1998).</ref> ''begging the question'' (or equivalent rephrasing thereof) is sometimes used in place of "raises the question", "invites the question", "suggests the question", "leaves unanswered the question" etc. Such preface is then followed with the question, as in:<ref name="Corbett">{{cite news |url=http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/begging-the-question-again/ |title=Begging the Question, Again |first=Philip B. |last=Corbett |date=25 September 2008 |newspaper=New York Times}}</ref><ref name=m-w>{{Cite news|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-question|title=Beg the Question|access-date=3 November 2018|language=en}}</ref> 
* "[...]{{nbsp}}personal letter delivery is at an all-time low{{nbsp}}... Which begs the question: are open letters the only kind the future will know?"<ref name=m-w/>
* "Hopewell's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?"<ref name=collins>"[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/beg-the-question beg the question]". ''Collins Cobuild Advanced English Dictionary'' online, accessed on 2019-05-13</ref>
* "Spending the summer traveling around India is a great idea, but it does beg the question of how we can afford it."<ref name=camb>"[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/beg-the-question beg the question]" ''Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus'' online, accessed on 2019-05-13</ref>

Sometimes it is further confused with "[[question dodging|dodging the question]]", an attempt to avoid it, or perhaps more often ''begging the question'' is simply used to mean leaving the question unanswered.<ref name="Liberman"/>

== See also ==
{{Wiktionary}}
{{Portal|Philosophy}}
* [[Ambiguity]]
* [[Catch-22 (logic)]]
* [[Circular definition]]
* {{lang|la|[[Consequentia mirabilis]]}}
* [[Euphemism treadmill]]
* {{slink|Infinite regress#Failure to explain}}
* [[Fallacies of definition]]
* [[Loaded question]]
* [[Open-question argument]]
* [[Polysyllogism]]
* [[Presuppositional apologetics]]
* [[Regress argument]] ({{lang|la|diallelus}})
* [[Spin (propaganda)]]

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== References ==
{{Refbegin}}
* Cohen, Morris Raphael, Ernest Nagel, and John Corcoran. ''An Introduction to Logic''. Hackett Publishing, 1993. {{ISBN|0-87220-144-9}}.
* Davies, Arthur Ernest. ''A Text-book of Logic''. R.G. Adams and Company, 1915.
* [[Wilson Follett|Follett, Wilson]]. ''Modern American Usage: A Guide''. Macmillan, 1966. {{ISBN|0-8090-0139-X}}.
* Gibson, William Ralph Boyce, and [[Augusta Klein]]. ''The Problem of Logic''. A. and C. Black, 1908.
* Herrick, Paul. ''The Many Worlds of Logic''. Oxford University Press, 2000. {{ISBN|0-19-515503-3}}
* Kahane, Howard, and Nancy Cavender. ''Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the use of reason in everyday life''. Cengage Learning, 2005. {{ISBN|0-534-62604-1}}.
* Kilpatrick, James. "Begging Question Assumes Proof of an Unproved Proposition". ''Rocky Mountain News (CO)'' 6 April 1997. Accessed through Access World News on 3 June 2009.
* Martin, Robert M. ''There Are Two Errors in the {{sic|the|hide=y|reason=intentional duplicate 'the' in source title}} Title of This Book: A sourcebook of philosophical puzzles, paradoxes, and problems''. Broadview Press, 2002. {{ISBN|1-55111-493-3}}.
* Mercier, Charles Arthur. ''A New Logic''. Open Court Publishing Company, 1912.
* Mill, John Stuart. ''A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: being a connected view of the principles of evidence, and the methods of scientific investigation''. J.W. Parker, 1851.
* [[William Safire|Safire, William]]. [https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/26/magazine/on-language-take-my-question-please.html "On Language: Take my question please!"]. ''The New York Times'' 26 July 1998. Accessed 3 June 2009.
* Schiller, Ferdinand Canning Scott. ''Formal logic, a scientific and social problem''. London: Macmillan, 1912.
* Welton, James. "Fallacies incident to the method". [https://archive.org/details/amanuallogicvol00weltgoog ''A Manual of Logic'', Vol. 2.] London: W.B. Clive University Tutorial Press, 1905.
{{Refend}}

{{Fallacies}}
{{Logic}}

[[Category:Barriers to critical thinking]]
[[Category:Cognitive inertia]]
[[Category:Error]]
[[Category:Fallacies]]
[[Category:Ignorance]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]