The fallacy of reasoning committed when one assumes the truth of what one is attempting to prove in an argument.
A circular fallacy that assumes in the premises of the argument that the conclusion about to be made is already true. Also known as “circular reasoning.
A fallacy in which the very conclusion (question) to be proved is, in some form or other, assumed to be true; or, one in which the conclusion is proved by a principle whose truth depends on the truth of the conclusion itself. Synonym: Petitio principii.
A fallacy of acceptability that occurs when a debater introduces evidence that is the same as the claim.
A persuasive fallacy in which the writer assumes the reader will automatically accept an assertion without proper support. example- "Lying is universalówe all do it; we all must do it. Therefore, the wise thing is for us to diligently train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously." Mark Twain
A flaw or fallacy in rational argument in which one of the premises is founded on the matter under dispute. E.g., Clive Bell's unique aesthetic emotion is the result of significant form, which is itself undefined except as certain relations of forms that generate aesthetic emotion. The argument is circular (see tautology) and is thus invalid. For a practical application, see cultural selection. For a narrow example, see autistic certainty
Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.
