Circular reasoning

Definition

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise within the same argument, essentially assuming what it is trying to prove. This type of reasoning lacks proper evidence, making it unconvincing, as it leads back to the initial claim without providing outside support. It’s important in critical thinking to recognize this fallacy as it undermines rational discourse and can mislead discussions.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Circular reasoning often appears in debates and discussions where individuals restate their claims instead of providing solid arguments.
2. This fallacy can be difficult to detect because the reasoning sounds plausible on the surface but fails upon closer examination.
3. In critical thinking, identifying circular reasoning helps clarify arguments and encourages deeper analysis of claims being made.
4. It often leads to stagnation in discussions since participants may be caught in a loop without advancing the conversation.
5. Recognizing circular reasoning can improve one's ability to construct sound arguments and engage in more effective critical thinking.

Review Questions

• How does circular reasoning affect the strength of an argument in critical discussions?
  • Circular reasoning weakens an argument because it doesn't provide any new evidence or support for its conclusion; it merely restates the claim. This lack of substantiation can lead to confusion or misinterpretation among listeners, preventing them from understanding or accepting the argument. Recognizing this fallacy is crucial in critical discussions as it promotes clearer, more effective communication.
• Compare circular reasoning with other forms of logical fallacies and explain why it is particularly problematic in critical thinking.
  • Unlike some logical fallacies that might introduce unrelated information or emotional appeals, circular reasoning is particularly problematic because it inherently lacks external validation. It relies on the assumption that what is being claimed is already true, which prevents genuine debate and examination of ideas. This makes it essential for critical thinkers to differentiate between valid premises and those that simply loop back on themselves.
• Evaluate the implications of circular reasoning on public discourse and decision-making processes.
  • Circular reasoning can severely impact public discourse by perpetuating misunderstandings and misrepresentations of facts. When decision-makers rely on arguments that do not substantiate their claims, they risk making uninformed choices based on flawed reasoning. This not only stifles productive debate but can also lead to policies grounded in erroneous assumptions, ultimately affecting societal outcomes and progress.

Related terms

Begging the question: A form of circular reasoning where an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it.

Logical fallacy: An error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, often used to persuade or mislead.

Argument from authority: A fallacy that occurs when someone asserts a claim is true based solely on the authority of the person asserting it, rather than on substantive evidence.