Logical fallacy: مصادرة على مطلوب

The above phrase is understood to mean "begging the question". It is explained below:

Understanding "Begging the Question" Definition

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's conclusion is assumed in its premises. Essentially, it means that the argument relies on the conclusion being true for its premises to hold. For example:
​

• Argument: “Opium causes sleep because it has a high sedative quality.”
• Critique: This statement assumes what it’s trying to prove—namely, that opium causes sleep.

In logical terms, if we denote the claim as C, the fallacy can be represented as C → C (where the conclusion is circularly supported by itself). When multiple variables are involved, it may attempt to pass (C → P) → C as proof for P → C, which constitutes circular reasoning.
Historical ContextThe term "begging the question" derives from Aristotle's phrase (τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς), which translates to "to assume the initial part." Aristotle used it in discussions about dialectical proof in his work, emphasizing the need for a respondent to defend a proposition against contradictions posed by the questioner.

In the sixteenth century, the Latin term petitio principii was translated into English. It can mean "assuming the hypothesis" or "assuming the basic point." This reflects the logical nature of the fallacy, where the conclusion is embedded within the premise.
Examples of Begging the Question

"Theft is an unlawful act because if it weren't, the law wouldn't prohibit it."
Critique: This statement essentially restates the premise without providing real justification, as it equates legality with morality.

"We should not export weapons because it is wrong to provide others with tools for killing."
Critique: This argument merely rephrases the claim in a different way, hiding the conclusion within the premise.

"Allowing every person absolute freedom of speech should be regarded as beneficial for the state, because one of the things that always serves the interests of society is that each individual enjoys complete freedom to express their feelings."
Critique: Again, the conclusion is embedded within the premise, making it an unsupported assertion.

"Abortion is morally acceptable because it is kind and merciful to help another human being avoid suffering through death."
Critique: The terms "kind and merciful" are synonymous with "morally acceptable," failing to provide substantial reasoning.

Related Fallacies

• Circular Reasoning: Similar to begging the question, this fallacy occurs when an argument's conclusion is included in its premises. For instance, “If the premise is true, then the conclusion must also be true,” which doesn't provide any independent evidence.
• Complex Question Fallacy: This occurs when a question presupposes the truth of another unproven statement, like asking, “What color is the dress Mary is wearing?” when it assumes Mary is indeed wearing a dress.
• Ignoring the Question: This happens when someone strays from the main issue, failing to address the claim directly.

Contemporary Usage In modern English, "begging the question" is often misused to mean "raising the question." For example:

• “The success of the Hopewell company raises the question: Why don't other companies do the same?”
• “Spending the summer traveling around India is a wonderful idea, but it raises the question of how we can afford it?”

This contemporary use is criticized by some scholars and logicians, who believe it strays from Aristotle's original meaning.

Appeal to the Question: This fallacy occurs when the premises implicitly contain the truth of the conclusion. It can be summarized as follows:

1. Premises assume the truth of the conclusion (explicitly or implicitly).
2. Therefore, the conclusion is claimed to be true.

This is problematic because it fails to offer clear evidence; instead, it disguises the conclusion within the premises.