What logical fallacy is present when someone uses a well-known reference to support their claim without providing evidence?

What logical fallacy is present when someone uses a well-known reference to support their claim without providing evidence?

• A. Victory by Definition
• B. Ad Hominem
• C. Begging the Question
• D. Inconsequent Argument

Answer: (C)

The correct answer pertains to the concept of "Begging the Question," which involves making a claim based on its own premise without providing external evidence to substantiate it. In this scenario, someone references a well-known figure or fact to bolster their argument without presenting additional supporting evidence. This implies that the reference itself is inherently sufficient to validate the claim. This fallacy occurs because the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, circling back to its original assertion without truly engaging with the rationale that would demonstrate the claim's truth or validity. Thus, without external evidence, the reference does not effectively contribute to the argument but rather serves as a pitfall in reasoning. This illustrates how appearances of authority do not equate to actual proof, which is crucial in critical thinking and argumentation.

The correct answer pertains to the concept of "Begging the Question," which involves making a claim based on its own premise without providing external evidence to substantiate it. In this scenario, someone references a well-known figure or fact to bolster their argument without presenting additional supporting evidence. This implies that the reference itself is inherently sufficient to validate the claim.

This fallacy occurs because the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, circling back to its original assertion without truly engaging with the rationale that would demonstrate the claim's truth or validity. Thus, without external evidence, the reference does not effectively contribute to the argument but rather serves as a pitfall in reasoning. This illustrates how appearances of authority do not equate to actual proof, which is crucial in critical thinking and argumentation.