Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Philosophy

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Fallacies of unwarranted assumption</OpenstaxTerm> occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person <OpenstaxEm>assumes</OpenstaxEm> something <OpenstaxEm>unwarranted</OpenstaxEm> to draw their conclusion. Often the unjustified assumption is only implicit, which can make these types of fallacies difficult to identify.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>False Dichotomy</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>False dichotomy</OpenstaxTerm>, or “false dilemma,” occurs in an argument when a limited number of possibilities are assumed to be the only available options. In the classic variation, the arguer offers two possibilities, shows that the one cannot be true, and then deduces that the other possibility must be true. Here is the form:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxOl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Either A or B must be true.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		A is not true.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Therefore, B is true.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxOl>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The form itself looks like a good argument—a form of disjunctive syllogism. But a false dichotomy is an <OpenstaxEm>informal</OpenstaxEm> fallacy, and such errors depend upon the content of arguments (their meaning and relation to the world) rather than the form. The problematic assumption occurs in premise 1, where it is assumed that A and B are the <OpenstaxEm>only</OpenstaxEm> options. Here is a concrete example:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxBlockquote>
	 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		A citizen of the United States either loves their country, or they are a traitor. Since you don’t love your country, you are a traitor.
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
</OpenstaxBlockquote>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The above argument assumes that loving the United States or being a traitor are the only two possible options for American citizens. The argument assumes these options are mutually exclusive (you cannot be both) and jointly exhaustive (you must be one or the other). But this position requires justification. For example, a person can have mixed emotions about their country and <OpenstaxEm>not</OpenstaxEm> be a traitor. False dichotomy is poor reasoning because it artificially limits the available options and then uses this artificial limitation to attempt to prove some conclusion. A false dichotomy may include more than two options. The important thing to remember is a false dichotomy limits options in an argument without justification when there is reason to think there are more options.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Begging the Question</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Begging the question</OpenstaxTerm> occurs when an arguer either assumes the truth of the conclusion they aim to prove in the course of trying to prove it or when an arguer assumes the truth of a contentious claim in their argument. When the former happens, it is sometimes called <OpenstaxEm>circular reasoning</OpenstaxEm>. Here is an example:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxOl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		The Bible states that God exists.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		The Bible is true because it is divinely inspired.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Therefore, God exists.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxOl>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The problematic assumption occurs in premise 2. To say the Bible is “divinely inspired” is to say that it <OpenstaxEm>is the word of God</OpenstaxEm>. But the argument aims to prove that God exists. So premise 2 assumes that God exists in order to prove God exists. This is patently circular reasoning. The name “begging the question” is confusing to some students. One way to think about this fallacy is that <OpenstaxEm>the question</OpenstaxEm> is whatever is at issue in a debate or argument. Here the question is “Does God exist?” To “beg” the question means to assume you already know the answer. The above argument assumes the answer to the question it is supposed to answer.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The name “begging the question” makes more sense for the second form of the fallacy. When a person begs the question in the second sense, they assume the truth of something controversial while trying to prove their conclusion. Here is an example you might be familiar with:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxOl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		The intentional killing of an innocent person is murder.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Therefore, abortion is murder.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxOl>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	This is a valid argument. Structurally, it uses good logic. However, the argument is an example of begging the question because of premise 2. Much of the debate over abortion revolves around the question of whether a fetus is a person. But premise 2 simply assumes that a fetus is a person, so the argument <OpenstaxEm>begs the question</OpenstaxEm> “Is a fetus a person?”
</OpenstaxParagraph>

5.5.3 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

1 Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

1.1.1 Historical Origins of Philosophy

1.1.2 How It All Hangs Together

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

1.2.1 Sources of Evidence

1.2.2 Logic

1.2.3 Conceptual Analysis

1.2.4 Trade-offs

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

1.3.1 “The Life Which Is Unexamined Is Not Worth Living”

1.3.2 Human Wisdom Is Worth Little or Nothing

1.3.3 The Importance of Doing No Harm

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

1.4.1 What Can You Do with a Philosophy Major?

1.4.2 An Overview of Your Philosophy Textbook

2 Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine

2.1.1 The Brain’s Adaptive Ability to Plan Ahead

2.1.2 The Evolutionary Advantage of Shortcuts

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

2.2.1 Critical Reflection and Metacognition

2.2.2 Cognitive Biases

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

2.3.1 Strive for Objectivity

2.3.2 Adopt Epistemic Humility

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

2.4.1 Start with a Strong Foundation

2.4.2 The SIFT Method (Four Moves for Student Fact Checkers)

2.5 Reading Philosophy

2.5.1 Prepare to Read

2.5.2 Engaging with Philosophical Texts

2.5.3 Pre-reading

2.5.4 First Read

2.5.5 Close Read

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

2.6.1 Identify Claims

2.6.2 Collect Evidence and Build Your Case

2.6.3 Organize Your Paper

3 The Early History of Philosophy around the World

3.1 Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.1 Challenges in Researching Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.2 Indigenous African Philosophy

3.1.3 Indigenous North American Philosophical Thought

3.1.4 Mesoamerican Philosophy

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

3.2.1 The Vedic Tradition

3.2.2 Classical Indian Darshanas

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

3.3.1 Early Chinese Philosophical Thought prior to Confucius

3.3.2 Confucianism

3.3.3 Daoism

3.3.4 Mohism

4 The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy

4.1.1 Presentist Approach

4.1.2 Contextualist Approach

4.1.3 Hermeneutic Approach

4.2 Classical Philosophy

4.2.1 Egyptian Origins of Classical Philosophy

4.2.2 Ancient Greek Philosophy

4.2.3 The Presocratics

4.2.4 Socrates and Plato

4.2.5 Aristotle

4.2.6 Epicureans

4.2.7 Roman Philosophy

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.1 Defining Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.2 Early Jewish Philosophy

4.3.3 Early Christian Philosophy

4.3.4 Islamic Philosophy

4.3.5 Late Medieval Philosophy in Christian Europe

4.3.6 Jewish Philosophers in the Christian and Islamic Worlds

4.3.7 The Rise of Reason in the Early Modern Era

5 Logic and Reasoning

5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth

5.1.1 Dialectics and Philosophical Argumentation

5.1.2 The Use of Reason to Discover Truth

5.1.3 Testing Hypotheses

5.1.4 Laws of Logic

5.1.5 Normativity in Logic

5.2 Logical Statements

5.2.1 Conditionals

5.2.2 Universal Statements

5.3 Arguments

5.3.1 Getting to the Premises

5.3.2 The Difference between Truth and Logic

5.4 Types of Inferences

5.4.1 Deductive Reasoning

5.4.2 Inductive Inferences

5.4.3 Abductive Reasoning

5.5 Informal Fallacies

5.5.1 Fallacies of Relevance

5.5.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

5.5.4 Fallacies of Diversion

6 Metaphysics

6.1 Substance

6.1.1 Fundamentality: The One and the Many

6.1.2 Ontological Perspectives on Substance

Question	Answer
a fallacy of unwarranted assumption that either assumes the truth of a conclusion in the course of trying to prove it or assumes the truth of a contentious claim.	Begging the question
a fallacy of unwarranted assumption in which a limited number of possibilities are assumed to be the only available options.	False dichotomy