Which fallacy is demonstrated by claiming that a mischievous child has "a little of the devil in her"?

Which fallacy is demonstrated by claiming that a mischievous child has "a little of the devil in her"?

• A. Begging the question.
• B. Ad hominem.
• C. Diversion.
• D. Inconsequent argument.

Answer: (A)

The statement that a mischievous child has "a little of the devil in her" exemplifies the fallacy known as begging the question. This fallacy occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. In this case, suggesting that the child has "a little of the devil" is an assertion that presumes a moral or supernatural explanation for her behavior without providing evidence or rationale for why that explanation is true. Essentially, it poses the notion that mischievousness is inherently linked to devilishness without substantiating that connection or clarifying what is meant by "a little of the devil." As such, this phrasing fails to engage in proper reasoning by taking for granted what it aims to prove. In contrast, the other options represent different types of fallacies that do not apply to this situation: Ad hominem attacks the person instead of addressing the argument, diversion shifts focus from the argument to a different topic, and inconsequent argument contains premises that do not relevantly connect to the conclusion. None of these fit the reasoning displayed in the initial statement about the child.

The statement that a mischievous child has "a little of the devil in her" exemplifies the fallacy known as begging the question. This fallacy occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. In this case, suggesting that the child has "a little of the devil" is an assertion that presumes a moral or supernatural explanation for her behavior without providing evidence or rationale for why that explanation is true. Essentially, it poses the notion that mischievousness is inherently linked to devilishness without substantiating that connection or clarifying what is meant by "a little of the devil." As such, this phrasing fails to engage in proper reasoning by taking for granted what it aims to prove.

In contrast, the other options represent different types of fallacies that do not apply to this situation: Ad hominem attacks the person instead of addressing the argument, diversion shifts focus from the argument to a different topic, and inconsequent argument contains premises that do not relevantly connect to the conclusion. None of these fit the reasoning displayed in the initial statement about the child.