In which fallacy does the argument repeat the claim as a justification without offering proof?

The fallacy known as begging the question occurs when an argument's conclusion is assumed in one of its premises, effectively using the claim itself as justification without providing additional supporting evidence. This circular reasoning does not offer any new information or proof, as it relies on the initial assertion rather than substantively addressing the question at hand.

For example, if someone argues that "the law should be obeyed because it is illegal to break the law," they are simply restating the claim without providing any actual reasoning or support for why the law should be followed. This type of reasoning can undermine an argument because it fails to engage with the complexities or nuances of the subject, leaving it vulnerable to criticism.

The other options describe different types of logical fallacies that do not fit this description. For instance, victory by definition involves redefining terms to make one’s position seem favorable; appeal to ignorance relies on a lack of evidence to claim that a proposition is true; and inconsequent argument makes assertions that do not logically lead to the conclusion being drawn. None of these encapsulate the concept of circular reasoning inherent in begging the question.