Which fallacy is described as begging the question, i.e., assuming the conclusion within the premises?

Which fallacy is described as begging the question, i.e., assuming the conclusion within the premises?

• A. Petitio principii
• B. Circulus in demonstrando
• C. Ad verecundiam
• D. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Answer: (A)

Begging the question is when the argument assumes the conclusion within its own premises, so there is no independent support outside what’s being proved. The best name for this is petitio principii, the formal term for this exact move: the premises already take the conclusion as given. An example would be arguing that a claim is true because it is stated to be true, or using the conclusion as part of the premise, like “This source is reliable because it says it’s reliable.” In that sense, the argument circles back on itself and provides no outside justification. The other terms refer to related but distinct issues: appealing to authority relies on what a respected person or institution says; cum hoc ergo propter hoc confuses correlation with causation; and circu lus in demonstrando is also circular reasoning but emphasizes proving a conclusion by restating it within the demonstration itself. The given description—conclusion assumed in the premises—points to petitio principii as the precise label.

Begging the question is when the argument assumes the conclusion within its own premises, so there is no independent support outside what’s being proved. The best name for this is petitio principii, the formal term for this exact move: the premises already take the conclusion as given. An example would be arguing that a claim is true because it is stated to be true, or using the conclusion as part of the premise, like “This source is reliable because it says it’s reliable.” In that sense, the argument circles back on itself and provides no outside justification.

The other terms refer to related but distinct issues: appealing to authority relies on what a respected person or institution says; cum hoc ergo propter hoc confuses correlation with causation; and circu lus in demonstrando is also circular reasoning but emphasizes proving a conclusion by restating it within the demonstration itself. The given description—conclusion assumed in the premises—points to petitio principii as the precise label.