Argument Analysis
5.4 A Begging the Question (Circular Argument)
Begging the question is the use of a proposition as a premise in an argument intended to support that same proposition. The point of reasoning is to throw light on the truth or falsity of a proposition (the conclusion) by relating it to other propositions (the premises) that we already have some basis for believing to be true. If our reasoning does nothing more than relate p to itself, then it hasn’t gained us anything. It has not given us a reason to think p is true. Circular arguments are no more productive than circular definitions.
The most obvious way to commit the fallacy would be simply to restate the conclu-sion as a premise, in an argument of the form:
p
p again, so expect another crash in the market.
❋ 19. Dr. Kingston should not have given that choking man the Heimlich maneuver. He cracked one of his ribs, and a doctor’s first principle is to “do no harm.”
20. If pharmaceutical companies aren’t monitored by the govern-ment, then individual consumers will have to be completely respon-sible for learning every detail about the medicines that they take. The majority of people don’t have enough time or expertise to take on this responsibility, so we should leave it to the government.
21. University admissions depart-ments should not be allowed to give preference to the children of alumni. This will lead to the perpetuation of a predominantly white upper class, which will make it increasingly difficult for minori-ties to achieve upward mobility.
❋ 22. The last time I stretched my arms first and my legs second, I won my race. So that stretching se-quence must have increased my speed.
23. The catalog said it was a gold figu-rine, but these accents are made of silver! So it is not actually a gold figurine.
This usually occurs only when the proposition is formulated in two different ways, so that it is not immediately apparent that the person is simply restating the conclusion.
For example: “[l] Society has an obligation to support the needy, because [2] people who cannot provide for themselves have a right to the resources of the community.”
Statement 2 expresses the same proposition as 1: “society” means the same thing as
“community,” “the needy” are the same class of people as “those who cannot provide for themselves,” and the obligation mentioned in 1 is merely another way of expressing the right mentioned in 2. Both statements, therefore, should be given the same number, and the diagram would be
1
1
People typically beg the question in this way when a proposition seems so obvious to them that they aren’t sure what further evidence could be given for it, so they keep restating it in the hope that some formulation will strike the listener as plausible and lead him to agree.
A more subtle form of the fallacy occurs when the circle is enlarged to include more than one step: The conclusion p is supported by premise q, which in turn is supported by p (though there could be any number of intervening steps). Suppose I am arguing with an atheist about the existence of a supreme being. He asks why I believe that God exists, and I say, “Because the Bible says so.” If he then asks why he should take the Bible’s word for it, and I answer that the Bible is trustworthy because it is the Word of God, I am arguing in a circle: My premise assumes the existence of God, which was precisely the question at issue. As this example illustrates, circular reasoning of this type often occurs in debates when we try to answer an objection by falling back on the conclusion we are trying to establish.
An indirect form of begging the question is known as the complex question or loaded question. Suppose I accuse you of having cheated on a test, and when you deny it I say,
“Why are you lying to me?” Any answer you give will imply that you were indeed lying, and thus that you did cheat. The reason for this is obvious. Despite its appearance, the question is not simple but complex; it is loaded with an implicit assumption. There are really two questions here: “Are you lying?” and “If so, why?” We can’t even raise the sec-ond question, much less answer it, until we have answered the first one. By not asking the first question, I have simply assumed that the answer to it is “Yes”—I have begged that question. Strictly speaking, it is not the question itself— “Why are you lying” —that is fallacious. A question is not an assertion or an argument. But such questions rest on certain assumptions. In asking the question, I am implicitly asserting that you did lie (i.e., that you did cheat). I am thus assuming the very thing I need to prove.
5.4B Equivocation
We have seen that an argument links one or more propositions used as premises with a proposition that serves as the conclusion. We have also seen that what a proposition
5.4 Fallacies of Logical Structure 129
asserts depends (in part) on the words used to express it. The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word switches meaning in the middle of the argument—when it ex-presses one concept in one premise and another concept in another premise or in the conclusion.
Consider the following argument:
[Letter] grades are a crude and mechanical device that does not measure the nuances of student performance
Student work should not be graded [evaluated]
The conclusion is not supported by the premise because the term “grade” has shifted its meaning. The claim that letter grades are a poor evaluation device hardly implies that student work should not be evaluated at all; if anything, it implies that we should find a better means for measuring performance.
In this example, the equivocation occurred because a word was used in both a nar-rower sense, to designate a species (letter grades), and in a wider sense to designate a genus (evaluation as such). This illustrates a common pattern in which a word’s mean-ing is broadened in the course of an argument.
Another way in which this happens is by the metaphorical extension of a concept.
The term “censorship,” for example, refers to a restriction on someone’s freedom of speech by a government, using the coercive threat of fines, jail, or worse. But the term is sometimes used metaphorically for other constraints on the ability to express oneself. It would be equivocation to switch between these meanings, as in the following argument:
1. Some publishers censor speech by refusing to publish controversial authors
Some publishers violate the First Amendment by refusing to publish controversial authors
2. Censorship violates the First Amendment
+
In premise l, the term “censor” is used in the metaphorical sense, since the newspapers are merely choosing not to publish certain authors rather than literally threatening them with legal sanctions. But in premise 2, the term is used in its literal meaning, so the conclusion does not follow.
As an argument employs more complex and abstract concepts, equivocation be-comes more of a danger. The best way to avoid the danger is to use the techniques for clarifying and defining concepts that we studied in Chapter 2.