Editing Begging the question (section)

== Related fallacies ==
{{main|Circular reasoning|Complex question|Ignoratio elenchi}}
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of [[circular reasoning]] ({{lang|la|circulus in probando}}), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Dowden |first=Bradley |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#CircularReasoning |title=Fallacies |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=27 March 2003 |access-date=5 April 2012}}</ref> The individual components of a circular argument can be logically [[Validity (logic)|valid]] because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However, circular reasoning is not persuasive because a listener who doubts the conclusion also doubts the premise that leads to it.<ref>{{cite book |title=Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Logic |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |year=1998 |page=205 |isbn=978-0070466494 |last1=Nolt |first1=John Eric |last2=Rohatyn |first2=Dennis |last3=Varzi |first3=Achille}}</ref>

Begging the question is similar to the ''[[complex question]]'' (also known as ''trick question'' or ''fallacy of many questions''): a question that, to be valid, requires the truth of another question that has not been established. For example, "Which color dress is Mary wearing?" may be fallacious because it presupposes that Mary is wearing a dress. Unless it has previously been established that her outfit is a dress, the question is fallacious because she could be wearing pants instead.<ref name="Meyer1988">{{cite book |first=M. |last=Meyer |year=1988 |title=Questions and Questioning |series=Foundations of Communication |publisher=W. de Gruyter |isbn=978-3110106800 |lccn=lc88025603 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nwo5qXTCJewC&pg=PA198 |pages=198–199}}</ref><ref name="Walton1989">{{cite book |first=D.N. |last=Walton |year=1989 |title=Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0521379250 |lccn=88030762 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kswimguc5uYC&pg=PA36 |pages=36–37}}</ref>

Another related fallacy is ''[[ignoratio elenchi]]'' or ''irrelevant conclusion'': an argument that fails to address the issue in question, but appears to do so. An example might be a situation where A and B are debating whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his position with an argument that the law {{em|ought}} to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of {{lang|la|ignoratio elenchi}}.<ref>H.W. Fowler, ''[[A Dictionary of Modern English Usage]]''. Entry for {{lang|la|ignoratio elenchi}}.</ref>