Begging the question
type of fallacy, where a proposition is assumed as a premise, which itself needs a proof and directly entails the conclusion
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petitio principii) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the 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 philosophical 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.
An example is:
“Wool sweaters are better than nylon jackets as fall attire because wool sweaters have higher wool content".
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 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.
In modern times, "beg the question" has taken on the common meaning of "raises the question", a usage distinct from the study of logic. This usage is criticized for diluting the original meaning of the phrase.
The public source identifies “Begging the question” as type of fallacy, where a proposition is assumed as a premise, which itself needs a proof and directly entails the conclusion. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Begging, question and type.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Begging the question”, the useful work is to connect “type of fallacy, where a proposition is assumed as a premise, which itself needs a proof and directly entails the conclusion” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q219429. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Begging the question”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Begging the question primary sources, Begging the question archive and Begging research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Begging the question”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Begging the question” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.