Hmmm. Good points Mojo. Now I have even **more[/m] to ponder. Let me try some logic of my own (Gawd help us all)
Let’s break down example #2:
“People with suicidal tendencies are insane, because they want to kill themselves.”
Now lets formalize it:
P: Only an insane person would attempt suicide
C: A person who attempts suicide is insane.
The statement made in the premise is the same statement made in the conclusion. Therefore, by definition, the logic used in example 2 is circular. Unless I lost something in the simplification process.
You’re absolutely right about circularity necessitating their definition of BtQ, Mojo: If the the logic of a statement is circular, the premise is the same as the conclusion (P=C). Therefore an objection to C is automatically an objection to P, therefore it is, according to their given definition, begging the question. Therefore, circular logic by their definition begs the question.
I’m going to use the original definition of BtQ you gave, Mojo: That the “evidence” given in support of an argument relies on the argument being true. It’s more elegant and less abstract.
Anyone got an Excedrin?