Limited Scope example as Begging the Question

I think you have a point.

The description for limited scope is:

"The theory doesn't explain anything other than the phenomenon it explains (that one thing), and at best, is likely to be incomplete.  This is often done by just redefining a term or phrase rather than explaining it."

And the example seems to fit that! The claim is merely repeated in other words, instead of being explained.

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Also the definition of Limited Scope is a bit convoluted. It says "doesn't explain anything other than the phenomenon it explains". So, which is it? Does it "explain" the phenomenon or not? The following sentence of the definition though, clarifies it more. So, why do we keep the first part? Does it add anything or does it make it worse?

My attempt on defining more clearly the Limited Scope (by combining and rephrasing what is already written) would be:

" Failing to explain why a phenomenon happened, and instead simply restating what happened using different words. It is not an explanation if 'because' can be replaced with a phrase like 'in other words'. "

I noticed that too.

"Theory X is used to explain Y

Theory X only explains Y and nothing else"

...well that's pretty normal isn't it? Besides, as you observe, it doesn't actually explain anything.

I wonder what Dr Bo thinks.

I was checking the failure to elucidate . There it says:
"Usually, out of fear of embarassment, we accept confusing definitions as legitimate elucidations, that is WE PRETEND the term that was defined is NOW CLEAR TO US." I wonder, how many fallacy definitions (if we are honest) fall under that category. And I get that some of them can be difficult to be described and are best described by examples but in any case we shouldn't PRETEND something is clear to us when it's not. 

I suspect it is more than we'd both like to admit ;)

Some time ago, Dr Bo mentioned he was working on a new version of Logically Fallacious*. Perhaps he'll clarify some of the old definitions, and get rid of any fallacies that potentially overlap. That should help to deal with the failure to elucidate problem.

*assuming my memory (which isn't the most reliable) isn't failing me here

I think what is meant here with the word "explain" is what the arguer is thinking. The person committing the fallacy thinks they're explaining the phenomenon while they're only explaining that and nothing else. It sort of like a wake up call to re-think what the arguer thinks about what an explanation is. I think your definition is accurate by the way.

Hi guys. I will review this thread carefully when I have some time. I update the website in real time when I made changes, then update the book about once a year. It is about that time.

Great! Thanks for dropping in, Doc.

The criterion for Limited Scope is if you can substitute "because" with "in other words".

The phrase "everyone wants the new 'Slap Me Silly Elmo' doll is because this is the hottest toy of the season" can be expressed as "everyone wants the new "Slap Me Silly Elmo" doll; in other words this is the hottest toy of the season". 

"The hottest toy" = "the toy most customers want" (if it's all of them, even better).

In other words the two sentences express the same meaning only with different words, and that's why it's the Limited Scope fallacy. It's not an explanation if you just reword the same claim.

[To Kostas Oikonomou]

I don't think that's the criterion for the limited scope fallacy. What I got is that the replacement works to avoid the fallacy; it clarifies the explanation. For example, if we do the replacement in the doll example, we may consider the arguer as trying to clarify the explanation as to what is meant by "people wanting the toy," namely, we might mean that it is the hottest toy of the season. I also think that the replacement may be an explanation even if there's rewording. This is because we could clarify something using different words. 

It seems limited scope just restates the claim in other words, rather than 'explaining' anything.

Example:

"People often make hasty decisions (A) because they don’t take enough time to consider their choices (B)."

B is just A, written in other words. There's no 'explanation' anywhere, only the illusion of one.

Limited depth is similar. Example:

"My dog (A) goes through our garbage because he is a dog (B)."

A is a subset of B, therefore A does X. This also isn't an explanation, but instead of restating the claim in different language, it just appeals to membership of a category.

I think the confusion is coming from the way limited scope is described ("the theory explains only the phenomenon it explains" is strangely worded, so it is hard to see where the fallacy is).

For instance, if we give a better (not perfect!) explanation for why people make hasty decisions:

"People often make hasty decisions (A) because they feel pressure to commit to things quickly, out of fear of appearing indecisive (B)."

Now rather than restating A as B, we've actually explained something, by giving the effect (A) a cause (B). 

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Perhaps limiting the scope is a way of begging the question. We could prove this if we agree that every theory that explains something, and only that, is a re-statement of the phenomenon but using different words; that is, if X is a theory that explains Y and only Y, then X is Y. 

Proof:

1. Theory X is proposed to explain Y. 
2. X explains Y and nothing else.
3. Therefore, Y is true.

Premise 2 is the same then as saying that X is Y. Then the conclusion appears in line 2.

The converse, every question begging fallacy results from limiting the explanatory scope of a theory, may be true if we agree that every claim on the way things are is also a theory.

I'll add my take on what I think limiting scope is.

I'm gonna take an intuitive approach to what a theory is: gathering pieces of information or guesses (preferably educated guesses) that would explain some phenomenon. 

Example: Ice-cream sales went up during the summer. The reason for that is that the temperature raises during the summer. That's when people take time off and therefore there are more tourists around. Since the temperature is high, people want to cool off. Ice-cream is great to cool off! 

Here, the theory explains why ice-cream sales went up, the cause for those sales, and the cause of the cause. For example, the cause of the sales are more tourists being around but the cause of that is the time when there are more people available to take the time off. We could also say that the theory explains why people want ice-cream; to cool off. So the explanatory scope of the theory is pretty wide. 

We may limit the scope by removing pieces of information or guesses to the theory. 

Example 2: Ice-cream sales went up during the summer. The reason for that is because there are more tourists around. 

This theory explains the why ice-cream sales went up, there are more tourists around, and the cause of that; more tourists means more people that may buy ice-cream. The explanatory scope doesn't reach why more people means more sales nor why people want ice-cream. 

Example 3: Ice-cream sales went up during the summer. The reason is because more money came in.

This theory explains why ice-cream sales went up, and nothing else. Why did more money came in? We can only guess because there were more tourists around. Or because temperature rose and more of the locals wanted ice-cream.