In The Organon, the Fallacy of Begging the Question first appears in the fifth chapter of “the sophisticated refutations, ” where Aristotle believes that this Fallacy is deceptive only when similar things cannot be distinguished from different things. On this definition, Begging the Question is a circular arguments, in which the conclusion is identically one of the premises. The same interpretation appears in the works of Muslim logicians as well, where most examples are those in which the conclusion and premises differ only in their appearance. In the classical logic, however, reiteration of premises in the conclusion does not amount to the invalidity of the argument. In the present research, which is done with the analytical-analogical method, we propose a structure of the Fallacy of Begging the Question: it does not involve a simple circle where the conclusion appears in the premises,rather, it involves the claim that the circular relation between the premise and the conclusion is a criterion for the truth of a certain proposition. In fact, the formal structure of this Fallacy is as follows: (P→, P)├,P. Given the truth or falsity of a proposition for an audience, this proposal can explain why certain circles are epistemically misleading to the audience, and others are not. Moreover, the argument “if P, then P” will not be rendered invalid in this way neither syntactically nor semantically.

This paper has two objectives: first, to provide an explanation and analysis of Anselm and Plantinga's ontological argument based on the interpretation of William Rowe, a contemporary atheist, and second, to determine the place of the Fallacy of " Begging the Question" in this argument. After presenting the criticisms of Anselm's interpretation of the argument, Rowe considers Plantinga's modal version to be the most convincing version of the argument and believes that previous interpretations, based on the principle that "existence in reality" is a superior property, are caught in a logical Fallacy. Plantinga's interpretation is also based on the premise that God is "a possible being with maximum perfection," and this proposition is true only if God exists in the real world. In this research, using an analytical-critical method, I show that Anselm's interpretation and Plantinga's reconstruction of it are fallacious, and although Plantinga's modal interpretation has logical necessity, it does not prove the necessity of God's existence in the external world. This is because perfection in this argument is defined in a way that falls into the Fallacy of "Begging the Question”.

In article of “ social factors in mathematical and logical knowledge” The Author shows that social factors are determinant in logical and mathematical knowledge as differences of mathematicians, variety of contradiction in Reductio ad absurdum, deconstruction in infinite values, Wittgenstein`s analysis of Sum, change of the concept of evidence in history, Begging the Question of proof of axioms, Begging the Question of justification of logical rules by the value tables, Prior`s argument against formalists, absence of preference for psychological explanations against sociological ones, paradoxes of material implication, To appeal to intuition rather than reasoning, the critique of circular reasoning, conventionality of logical rules, harvest paradox … In analysis of this evidences, first, I determined minimalistic evidences as the principle of contradiction, modus ponens, reductio ad absurdum. Second, I analyzed the cases as Infinite values, Wittgenstein`s point of view, value tables, Prior`s argument, convention, Lack of necessity in obviousness of concepts in the obvious propositions, uncertain conceptions… At last I showed that social factors are not considered essential in logical and mathematical knowledge.

There are a lot of debates over the necessity of decriminalization of crime conducts (behaviors) which have no direct crime victims (crimes without victims or victimless crimes) and no serious violations of the society values and norms while they are considered crimes by the legislator. This research has studied two cases of these deviances which are crimes according to article 712 of the Islamic penal code under topics of Begging and vagrancy transforms into crimes (the Article justifies to criminalize them) and provided possibility or impossibility of criminalization of these conducts and after mentioning the proving reasons and opposing ones of decriminalization of these conducts, the result shows that the balance of decriminalization is preferable provisionally.

In the history of translation, the methods literarytranslators have used may bedescribedby two very general terms "word-for-word"and "sense-for-sense" andthe pendulum of the preferred method has been swingingback and forth in favorof now this and now that method. Those have claimed the superiority of one method over the other, have based their argument on criteria that are externalto the practice of translation. These criteria fall into three broad cultural,linguisticand ethical categories.The writer argues that the definition of thepreferredliterarytranslationmethod is fallaciousand tit is possible to define the method based on internal criteria, which are neither subjective nor prescriptive.Having presented a definition of literary translation based on objectivecriteria derived from the very practice of translation,the writer briefly describesthe situationof literarytranslationin Iran as a case of Fallacy.