Begging the question: ugh. I hate definitions. But begging te question is basically setting up a controversial/unresolved issue without expressing the solution, thereby causing the reader to question the matter without ever even having to necessarily phrase the issue as a question.

I'm sure all of you are ridiculously tired of hearing about my article. But come on! An article with the best sources, logistic evidence, and twinges of guilty pathos just SHOULDN'T be deemed "ineffective" from one silly rhetorical fallacy. But it is. And it drives me nuts.

This rhetorical fallacy is begging the question. Throughout the entirety of the piece, the author claims that economic globalization leads to the globalization of poverty. She uses excellent, current sources such as the CIA, United Nations, economic professionals, world leaders, and even current pro-globalization companies to support her opinion. She provides outrageous poverty and wealthy/poor ratios and differences to logistically prove her argument. She uses the President of southern Africa, a man well acquainted with poverty and the effects of globalization, to send guilty twinges down the readers spines. But she never answers the stupid, basic question, "How??" "How does economic globalization cause globalized poverty and increased income gaps?" This lak of information discredits her entire argument. A few sparse sentences could have taken her from sadly unbelievable to epically credible had she only taken the time to clarify this basic question.
Begging the question isn't always bad. In some cases, the author may create a sense of suspense regarding a certain, unresolved issue to get the readers mind turning before a sassy ending reveals the previously withheld information. In these cases, begging te question is very effective, and not only helps the reader to reach similar conclusions as the author, but also keep the reader hooked and entertained throughout the piece.