A begging the question fallacy is a type of circular reasoning that hides the conclusion in one of the reasons. This type of fallacy is not reasonable because it serves to only prove what is already assumed. Begging the question fallacies are arguments that are often constructed purposefully to conceal the conclusion within the premise. Often this happens with a reason assuming something that is stated as true within the conclusion. On this surface, this type of fallacy seems convincing because it works logically. If the premises are assumed to be true, but are not actually true, then the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
Example Argument: “Doctors should never euthanize a patient because doctor’s should never kill people.”
Premise 1: Euthanasia kills people (it doesn’t preserve life)
Premise 2: Doctors should never kill people (they should always preserve life)
Conclusion: Therefore, doctors should never commit euthanasia (they should never kill people)
We can see how the second premise and the conclusion are the same: doctor’s should always preserve life. The rephrasing of “should never kill people” in the conclusion can make it hard to that the same thing is being asserted as a reason in premise two.