
So I thought, Hey, I should white wash these chairs and ....

paint them groovy colors. I present chair #1

A writer on the edge. Go ahead and leave comments or introduce yourself.
Back to the logic, or my attempts to explain it to myself and possibly others.
How familiar does this sound (if you replace the necessary project and agency)?
“Unnecessary projects like the space elevator should be abandoned by all super cool space agencies.” (great example, huh?)
The speaker will then go on to talk about all the money being spent on this frivolous project, which nobody wants. The problem is that the speaker never established that this was a project that no one wanted or thought frivolous. In order to start this argument, the speaker needed to first gain consensus that the project was unnecessary or implausible. This is “begging the question,” when an individual moves onto the safe zone of the argument while ignoring the actually problem.
In a book I read recently, I found this fallacy displayed this way. Character A started a discussion about another character by saying that Character B was worthless. Character A then went on to argue that whatever happened to Character B was justifiable because of the aforementioned worthlessness. The problem, of course, is Character B’s worth was never established.
I find that this is a major pitfall for me in my writing. I want to claim things to be a certain way, so I can move on to pushing my characters forward. For example, I just love to claim that Character X’s idea was so ridiculous, and who would waste their time doing such a stupid thing, without ever going through the extra step of providing the logic behind why the idea was wrong. Oh, I do nitpick.
For the logic nerds, here are the forms (from Wikipedia):
Formally speaking, the simplest form of begging the question follows the following structure. For some proposition p:
However, the following structure is more common:
This is my dog,