Which fallacy treats a claim as if it needs no further proof?

The correct answer is associated with a fallacy that assumes a claim is self-evident without requiring any additional evidence or argumentation. This fallacy arises when the claim being made is essentially repeated as proof of itself, thus failing to provide any independent justification for its truth.

In essence, "begging the question" sets up a scenario where the conclusion is already taken for granted in the premises. For instance, stating that a law is just because it is right does not furnish any compelling reasoning; rather, it presumes the conclusion without substantiating it. This lack of further proof is what categorizes it within this specific fallacy.

The other options, despite being common logical errors, do not fit the description of making a claim appear unavoidably true without further proof in the same way that begging the question does. Circular reasoning is closely related but specifically refers to arguments where the conclusion is among the premises, while ignoring the question typically involves evading the primary argument altogether. Non sequitur highlights a disconnect between premises and conclusion, indicating irrelevance rather than a claim needing no proof.