How can a claim be made that relies on mere assumptions rather than evidence?

The claim that relies on mere assumptions rather than evidence is best represented by the concept of "Begging the Question." This logical fallacy occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it with evidence. Essentially, the argument circles back to itself without any external justification, making its initial assertion seem true simply because it is repeated in different forms.

For example, if someone argues that a particular theory must be true because it is the best explanation, they are not providing evidence for the theory itself; instead, they are taking for granted that which needs to be proven. This creates a scenario where the argument does not have any substantiation and relies solely on assumptions that cannot be validated.

In contrast to other options, like Appeal to Ignorance, which argues that a claim is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false, or Straw Man, which misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack, Begging the Question explicitly fails to provide independent evidence for its claims. Ad Hominem attacks the character of the opponent rather than addressing the argument itself, which again is different from the premise of assuming the conclusion within the argument.