What does it mean when someone makes a statement that assumes its conclusion is already true?

The concept of "Begging the Question" describes a logical fallacy in which an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. This means that the argument is circular; it presents an assertion as a given without providing any actual evidence or reasoning to justify that assertion. For example, if someone claims that "freedom of speech is important because people should be allowed to express their opinions," they presume that allowing expression is already accepted as valuable without justifying why that is the case.

This fallacy is a critical focus in logical reasoning and debate because it undermines the strength of an argument. By not providing independent evidence to support the conclusion, the statement fails to engage in proper discourse and often leads to confusion rather than clarity.

In contrast, the other options represent different concepts. A leading question typically suggests a particular answer or contains an assumption that may not be true, while "Victory by Definition" refers to defining terms in such a way that victory in an argument is assured. "Ad Hominem" focuses on attacking the individual rather than addressing the argument itself. Understanding these distinctions helps clarify why "Begging the Question" is specifically about the structure of reasoning in arguments.