Which explanation points to the effect of 'begging the question' in arguments?

When an argument is said to 'beg the question,' it means that the conclusion it aims to prove is already assumed in its premises, effectively creating a circular reasoning scenario. This kind of argument does not provide valid support for the conclusion because it takes for granted the truth of what it is trying to establish. Thus, the reasoning fails to advance any real evidence or logical support, as it simply reasserts the conclusion as part of the premise.

This form of reasoning is problematic because it does not involve external validation or justification; instead, it relies on an assumption that the audience may or may not accept. Therefore, identifying the act of assuming what needs to be proven as 'begging the question' directly highlights the flaw inherent in such arguments.