Skip to main content
hysteron proteron

hysteron proteron

9.9
An error in reasoning that assumes the conclusion is already true
  • noun
  • /ˈhɪstərɒn ˈproʊtərɒn/
  • Literature
translation icon : histeron proteron
  • The argument contained a hysteron proteron, taking the conclusion as a given before it was established.

Examples

  • Pointing out the hysteron proteron in his opponent’s reasoning, she argued that the facts still required proof.

  • The argument contained a hysteron proteron, assuming the conclusion without establishing the supporting facts first.

  • In philosophical discussions, a hysteron proteron can undermine the logical validity of an argument.

  • The argument was an example of hysteron proteron.

  • In her essay, she analyzed the use of hysteron proteron in literature.

  • In philosophical discussions, a hysteron proteron can undermine the logical validity of an argument.

  • Pointing out the hysteron proteron in his opponent's reasoning, she argued that the conclusion needed further evidence.

Synonyms

petitio
vshysteron proteron
  • Formal
1 9.9

Making an argument that already assumes the answer

is the same fallacy but often referenced by its fuller formal name
petitio principii
vshysteron proteron
  • Formal
9.9

To use reasons that already assume the thing you must prove

is framed as a rhetorical or logical fallacy assuming unproven premise

Surface Forms

Morphology

hysteron + proteron

Both constituent items are non‑English classical/technical words (not found in the provided dictionary) and do not convey a clear literal meaning to an average B1 learner. The phrase is a specialized rhetorical term whose sense (a logical/rehtorical reversal or fallacy) is technical and not predictably derived from its components, so learners would need prior exposure or explicit explanation.

Etymology

Hysteron proteron can also mean a weak argument that 'assumes the conclusion' before any proof. Think of someone saying 'This medicine works because people get better' — they use the result as their proof, which is like 'putting the end first', so the argument is not logical.