Final answer:
The assertion that all religions are probably wrong because they all claim absolute truth does not constitute a logical fallacy but could represent the fallacy of unwarranted assumption. The actual logical fallacy where a conclusion is presupposed within the premises is known as begging the question, or circular reasoning.
Step-by-step explanation:
When multiple religions claim to be the absolute truth, the assertion that they are probably all wrong due to their conflicting stances does not necessarily constitute a logical fallacy. The claim could be seen as a critique on the verifiability of religious truths rather than a logical error. However, if one were to argue that the mere presence of multiple conflicting religious claims proves that all religions are wrong, without further examination, it would represent a form of the fallacy of unwarranted assumption.
The fallacy referred to in the context of assuming a conclusion within the premises of an argument is known as begging the question, or circular reasoning. It is one where the truth of the conclusion is presupposed by one or more of the argument's premises, often in a subtle and disguised way, rendering the argument logically invalid because it simply restates the initial assumption rather than providing a separate, conclusive proof.
Begging the question is distinct from the situation the student is describing, whereby the simultaneous truth-claims of multiple religions are treated skeptically. This does not assume the answer within the question but rather points to a lack of definitive evidence to prefer one claim over another.