关于beg the question

MyLolitaUID：114935

孙远讲到的beg the question 和circular reasoning是差不多一样吧！但具体什么意思呢？偶不懂！他举了topic2为例子！那位大侠结合这个例子分析一下？谢谢先！
看了一偏sample,有这么一段话，
Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.
好象是写这个问题的，但是没看懂！什么意思？

sunbeamyliUID：104835

这个问题好像有人提过beg the question 就是回避问题的意思，beg是回避的意思，eg  Your answer seems to beg the real question.（你的回答似乎避开了问题所在）

circular不是园的意思吗？这里做形容词，即作“绕圈子的”解，circular reasoning就是绕着圈子讲道理，也就是回避问题的意思。

sunbeamyliUID：104835

接着分析孙远的topic

Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, （作者在文章最后说两栖动物的数量减少是由于公园在1920年把鲑鱼放进水里的缘故）but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. （然而他却没有认识到仅仅公园的一个例子不能解释世界范围内的两栖动物减少）This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. （他的这种论断否认了这样一个事实，那就是鲑鱼天生就是吃amphibian蛋的。意思是：并不因为1920年把鲑鱼放进水里就使amphibian少了，两者本身就有一种平衡关系） This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. （这种试图从反面证明的方法是他们企图证明观点的最后手段，根本就是徒劳的） It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. （从反面证明是不可能的，这样做的目的就是将包袱扔给与他们持相反观点的人，是其无力无法辨驳。）The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof. （全球的生存环境与Yosemite国家公园并没有直接关联；没有进一步的根据，不能轻易否认鲑鱼吃蛋而造成后者数量减少的自然规律）

这篇文章的作者的意图为驳斥另一个作者关于鲑鱼吃蛋对amphibian数量减少的解释.  其实只要说最后一句话大家就明白他的意思了,但他却讲了一大通绕口舌的话(circular reasoning):
This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. （这种试图从反面证明的方法是他们企图证明观点的最后手段，根本就是徒劳的） It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. （从反面证明是不可能的，这样做的目的就是将包袱扔给与他们持相反观点的人，是其无力无法辨驳。）

不知道我这样解释是否正确，希望其他考兄考姐也发表一下意见