I just finished reading a humorous article by Eric Feezell about the oft misused phrase, “begging the question.” I’m told that I may have, at least on occasion, misapplied it myself, although I am prepared to offer my best circular reasoning to the contrary.
In the article, Feezell postulates that the term “begs the question” has essentially been bastardized, whereby laymen (e.g., us) have misconstrued or broadened its meaning, and in the process have pissed off a very small group of anal-retentive, scholarly types (e.g., them). So when you use the phrase, like most other people, you use it to mean something like, “Well, that opens up another can of worms.” For example: Your 16-year-old son gets in a fight with a bouncer at a strip club. Sure, it’s bad enough he’s rumbling with bouncers—and you are probably in need of some parenting books—but you might say the whole situation begs the question: How did he, being underage, get into the strip club in the first place? And did he at least get a lap dance before he was thrown out? (Let’s hope so.)
But that, writes Feezell, would be the incorrect use of “begging the question.” In a nutshell, “begging the question” refers to a 
certain fallacy in syllogistic argument where the very thing you are trying to prove (your conclusion) is presupposed in the supporting argument (your premises). This is sometimes called “circular reasoning.”
Structurally, it would look something like this:
- x implies y
- Assume x
- Therefore, y
Feezell explains, with tongue in cheek, linear, circular, triangular and other more complex variations of argumentative logic such as inductive argument and, of course, Popeye-Cartesian proof of existence (I think what I think, therefore I yam what I yam.)
I found his explanations entertaining and informative. If you enjoy word play, give the article a read because, as you know, smart people read, people read this blog, so reading this blog makes you smart. Right?