Which fallacy occurs when a question assumes the answer to a separate, unproven premise?

The identified fallacy, known as "Begging the Question," occurs when a question is constructed in a way that presupposes the truth of a separate, unproven premise. This creates a circular argument where the conclusion is essentially included in the premise, rendering it unsupported and requiring further proof. Essentially, the question assumes what it is trying to prove without providing evidence or justification for that assumption.

For instance, if someone asks, "Why is the use of organic farming better than conventional farming?" they are implicitly assuming that organic farming is indeed better, without providing evidence for that assertion. This makes the question fallacious because it does not allow for an unbiased discussion of the merits of either farming method.

In contrast, the other options represent different types of fallacies that do not directly involve the assumption of an unproven premise in the same manner:

• A Straw Man argument misrepresents an opposing view to make it easier to attack.

• A Leading Question is designed to guide the respondent toward a particular answer, often by including an assumption in the phrasing.

• A Red Herring introduces irrelevant material to distract from the issue at hand.

By clearly illustrating how a question can presuppose an unproven premise, "Begging the