QT 20 – Video Transcript and Bonus Info
Welcome to 2-Minute Tuesday and another QuickTake with Cate. Imagine yourself standing in the grocery store ready to pay for your carton of eggs. The cashier looks up at you and says,
“That will be 12 dollars.”
“But I’m buying only one carton of eggs,” you respond.
“Yes, but these are organic, keto, gluten-free, vegan, grass-fed eggs.”
How would you respond?
“I beg your pardon?”
“That begs the question.”
“That raises a follow-up question.”
If you say, “I beg your pardon?” you’re asking the cashier to repeat what she said, perhaps wondering if she meant to say 3 dollars and 12 cents.
If you say, “That raises a follow-up question,” the cashier would likely respond, “Which is what?”
You would then reply, “Why are organic, keto, gluten-free, vegan, grass-fed eggs so expensive?”
If the cashier replies, “Organic, keto, gluten-free, vegan, grass-fed eggs are expensive because they are organic, keto, gluten-free, vegan, and grass fed,” then—and only then—you could rightly respond, “That begs the question!”
The term “begging the question” has traditionally referred to a logical fallacy of presumption, known in Latin as petition principii. It is a fallacy that presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. That is, it cites as evidence the very thing it is trying to prove, for example, “Vegetables are good for you because eating them makes you healthy.” This fallacy is also known as a circular argument. The conclusion appears at both the beginning and the end of the argument, creating a circle.
Yet, you will often hear people use the phrase “begging the question” to mean, “that raises a question” or “that invites an obvious follow-up question.” Its original meaning has been repurposed from a logical fallacy to a simple inquiry.
Unfortunately, the use of begs the question to mean raises a question is so widespread that most dictionaries recognize this new sense of the phrase. Careful writers, however, will avoid sloppy wording as well as sloppy thinking. Avoid using begs the question unless you are pointing out a logical fallacy. Instead say, raises the question.
So the next time someone says to you, “Parallel lines never meet because they are parallel,” first say “I beg your pardon?” If they repeat what you thought they said, then you can rightly reply that such a claim “begs the question.”
The rest of the story:
Good writing is the result of good thinking. If our thinking is muddled, so too will be our writing. Be sure to watch out for these six other logical fallacies:
- Lack of objectivity. Seeing only the facts that support your views and ignoring any contradictory information.
Although half the surveyed counties expressed dissatisfaction with our current forms, a sizable portion find the forms satisfactory. Thus, we can proceed without worry. (You may be tempted to ignore the dissatisfied half instead of investigating the reasons for their dissatisfaction.) - Hasty generalization. Forming judgments on the basis of insufficient evidence or special cases.
Public relations strategy Z increased participation 12 percent in Los Angeles county. Let’s try it in Eureka. (Los Angeles and Eureka are vastly different counties.) - Hidden assumptions. Hiding a questionable major premise.
We are promoting our newest program in grocery store chains because we promoted our other program in grocery store chains. (What supports the assumption that both programs should be marketed in the same way?) - Either-or. Setting up only two alternatives without allowing for possible others.
We must open a new office by spring, or we will lose participation in the program. (Surely there are other ways to avoid losing participation.) - False causal relationships. Assuming that event A caused event B merely because A preceded B.
Participation increased 42 percent as soon as we simplified the application forms. (Something besides the simplified forms might have been responsible for or contributed to the increased participation.) - Personal attacks or appeals to popular prejudice. Attacking people (ad hominem) or sinking ideas you don’t like by chaining them to irrelevant but unpopular actions or ideas.
Bill mishandled the budget last year, so he can’t be expected to motivate his staff. (Bill’s accounting ability may have nothing to do with his ability to motivate staff.)
It’s un-American to impose government regulations. (Often regulations are unpopular, but they that doesn’t make them un-American—a failure to define terms, as well.)