Fallacies of presumption are arguments that depend

on some assumption that is typically unstated and

unsupported. Identifying the implicit assumption
often exposes the fallacy.

Some mistakes in everyday reasoning are the

consequence of an unjustified assumption, often
suggested by the way in which the argument is
formulated. That suggestion may be deliberate, or
the assumption may be only an oversight. In either
case, the reader, the listener, and even the author of
the passage may be led to assume the truth of some
unproved and unwarranted proposition.

When such dubious propositions, buried in the

argument, are crucial for the support of the
conclusion, the argument is bad and can be very
misleading. Arguments that depend on such
unwarranted leaps are called fallacies of
presumption.
P1. Accident
Circumstances alter cases. A generalization that is
largely true may not apply in a given case (or to
some subcategory of cases) for good reasons. The
reasons the generalization does not apply in those
cases have to do with the special circumstances, also
called the “accidental” circumstances, of that case or
those cases. If these accidental circumstances are
ignored, and we assume that the generalization
applies universally, we commit the fallacy of
accident.

An Accident Fallacy is an unsound argument

occurring when an exception to a rule of thumb is
ignored.
The fallacy occurs when a heuristic (A rule that is
usually true)—is mistaken for a categorical
statement—a rule that is always true.
Other names for this fallacy include: destroying the
exception, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum
quid, or simply a sweeping generalization.
The fallacy takes on the following form:
Xs are normally Ys.
A is an X. (Where A is not typical.)
Therefore, A is a Y.
-----------------------------

Birds Fly.
Ping the Penguin is a bird.
Therefore, Ping can fly.

P2. Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

One of the most common fallacies of presumption is
to ask a question in such a way as to presuppose the
truth of some conclusion that is buried in the
question.

A question is complex when it is asked in such a

way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion
buried in the question

This fallacy is often illustrated by the question

“Have you stopped beating your wife?” The
question presupposes that you have beaten your wife
prior to its asking, as well as presupposing that you
have a wife. If you have no wife, or have never
beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

With all of the hysteria, all of the

fear, all of the phony science,
could it be that man-made global
warming is the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American
people?

Such a statement assumes that much of the evidence

supporting global warming is unreliable or “phony.”

The complex question is often a deceitful device.

The speaker may pose some question, then answer it
or strongly suggest the answer with the truth of the
premise that had been buried in the question simply
assumed. A letter writer asks,
“If America’s booming economy
depends on people’s using consumer
credit beyond their means, thus
creating poverty, do we really have
a healthy economy?
The appearance of a question in an editorial or
headline often has the purpose of suggesting the
truth of the unstated assumptions on which it is built:
“Judge Took Bribe?”

In debate, whenever a question is accompanied by

the aggressive demand that it be answered “yes or
no,” there is reason to suspect that the question is
“loaded”—that it is unfairly complex.
Does the distinguished senator
believe that the American public
is really so naïve that they will
endorse just any stopgap
measure?
This “question,” cannot be answered “Yes.” It
conceals several unchallenged assumptions: that
what is proposed is a “stopgap” measure, that it
is
inadequate, and that the American public would
reject it.
 Lawyer: The figures seem to indicate that
your sales increased as a result of these
misleading advertisements. Is that correct?
Witness: They did not!
Lawyer: But you do admit, then, that your
advertising was misleading. How long have
you been engaging in practices like these?

Begging the Question

 The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an

argument's premises assume the truth of the
conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words,
you assume without proof the stand/position, or a
significant part of the stand, that is in question.
Begging the question is also called arguing in a
circle.

 To beg the question is to assume what we are trying

to prove. That is, the conclusion is stated or assumed
in the premises.
  An argument is circular if its conclusion is among
its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not)
what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to
beg the question.

 Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion

should also reject at least one of its premises (the one
that is the same as its conclusion), and so should
reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts
all of the argument’s premises already accepts the
argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been
persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will
the argument be successful.

Examples
1) God exists because the Bible says so, and the
Bible is true because it is the word of God.
2) I should knock you on the head because it is right
and good to knock persons like yourself on the head.
3) Consciousness is physical because consciousness
just is the brain.
4) You can trust John because Sue told me he is
trustworthy, and Sue believes it because Bob told
her, and Bob believes it because John told him.
5) Of course smoking pot should be illegal! After all,
it's against the law!
6) All knowledge is scientific because all
nonscientific claims are not really knowledge.
Discussion
If one argues "everyone is selfish because all people
are always selfish" then the conclusion validly
follows from the premise, but only because the
conclusion is simply a rewording of the premise.
One has assumed in the premises what one
supposedly proved in the conclusion.
The bottom line is you cannot assume what you are
trying to prove.

People may use the phrase “Begging the question” is

different ways. For example, some people mean a
premise has been omitted. Sometimes people say “it
begs the question” when there is a question that
should be part of discussion. For example, in
discussing prayer in school, a debater might say, “It
begs the question as to what the First Amendment
says.” But in the field of Logic and Philosophy,
begging the question means arguing in a circle or
assuming what you are trying to prove.
How to avoid
Make sure your conclusion is not a mere rewording
of your premises. Do not argue in a circle.

Examples:
1. Thoughts are not part of the physical world, since
thoughts are in their nature non-physical.
2. Happiness is the highest good for a human being,
since all other values are inferior to it.
3. Of course smoking causes cancer. The smoke
from cigarettes is a carcinogen.
4. Prosecutor to defendant: So how did you feel
when you killed your wife?
5. This whole abortion debate about when human
life begins is ridiculous. We should be thinking
about the rights of the baby.
6. John: "Why didn't you include Lorena's poetry in
the student publication?"  Anne: "Because it was
judged as not sufficiently worthy of publication."
7. People who deny the truth of Marxism are simply
dancing to the tune of their capitalist masters, as
Marx understood so well.
8. The rights of the minority are every bit as sacred
as the rights of the majority, for the majority's rights
have no greater value than those of the minority.

9. Of course the future will be like that past… and

scientific laws will continue to operate in the future!
After all, past futures have been like past pasts, so
future futures will be like the past futures.