Completed and arranged the argument becomes: No teacher should do as other people do, You are a teacher, ∴ You should not do as other people do. Surely the major premise demands proof. (2) _Reasoning in a Circle_ (_Circulus in probando_). This form of begging the question occurs, “When a conclusion is based upon a premise which in an earlier stage of the argument was itself based upon this very conclusion.” To put it in another way: Reasoning in a circle involves proving the truth of a conclusion by using a particular premise, and then proving the truth of the particular premise by using the conclusion. From premise to conclusion and from conclusion to premise completes the circle. _Examples of begging the question by reasoning in a circle_: (a) It is wrong because my conscience pricks me, and my conscience pricks me because it is wrong. (b) “The effeminate walk shows a lack of force; because no forceful man walks that way.” (c) Says Hamilton, “Plato, in his _Phoedo_, demonstrates the immortality of the soul from its simplicity; and in the _Republic_, he demonstrates its simplicity from its immortality.” (3) _Question Begging Epithets and Appellations._ This is the fallacy of assuming the point at issue by means of a carefully selected epithet. Scientists sometimes assume to clarify an inexplicable phenomenon by giving it a technical name. Politicians are exceedingly free with their epithets and appellations, and the records of religious disputes prove that the theologian often resorted to this device. _Examples of begging the question by using epithets and appellations_: (a) We must attribute the disease to _heredity_. (b) The candidate for governor is an _animated feather duster_. (c) They call him _Blue Charlie_. (d) It is the policy of the _big stick_. (e) The _muck-raker_ seldom makes an efficient servant of the people. It is seen that the use of these epithets and appellations is simply a rhetorical device for the purpose of creating either a favorable or unfavorable impression. =8. OUTLINE.= THE LOGICAL FALLACIES OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING. (1) A negative aspect of definition of logic. (2) Paralogism and sophism. Distinguished. Mission of Socrates. (3) A division of the deductive fallacies. More or less faulty. Aristotle’s phraseology retained. Division given. (4) General divisions explained. Formal and material. Material fallacies in _language_ and in _thought_. (5) Fallacies of immediate inference. Opposition, obversion, conversion, contraversion. (6) Fallacies in language (also fallacies of equivocation). Ambiguous middle――distinguished from four terms. Amphibology. Accent. Composition――“all” a pitfall. Division. Figure of speech.