Circular reasoning

Definition

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is included in the premise, making the argument inherently flawed and unconvincing. This type of reasoning fails to provide valid evidence outside of its own assertion, leading to a lack of real support for the claim being made. Essentially, it assumes what it is trying to prove, making it a key concept to identify in logical proofs and arguments.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. In circular reasoning, the argument can be rephrased without any change in meaning, demonstrating its lack of depth.
2. This type of reasoning can often go unnoticed in casual conversation, leading people to accept flawed arguments as true.
3. Common examples include phrases like 'the law is valid because it is enforced by the law' or 'I am trustworthy because I say I am trustworthy.'
4. Circular reasoning undermines the process of direct proof, as it does not establish any new information or evidence.
5. Identifying circular reasoning is crucial for critically evaluating arguments in both academic settings and everyday discussions.

Review Questions

• How does circular reasoning impact the validity of an argument in logical proofs?
  • Circular reasoning directly undermines the validity of an argument because it fails to provide independent support for its claims. In logical proofs, every step must build upon sound premises leading to a conclusion that is not already assumed. When an argument relies on circular reasoning, it doesn't advance understanding or knowledge since it merely restates its claims without providing new evidence.
• Identify and analyze an example of circular reasoning you might encounter in everyday discussions. How does this fallacy affect the conversation?
  • A common example of circular reasoning in everyday discussions could be someone saying, 'We can trust this news source because they always tell the truth.' Here, the premise relies on the very assertion it needs to prove—trustworthiness. This fallacy affects the conversation by creating a barrier to critical evaluation and discouraging healthy skepticism, which are essential for informed discussions.
• Evaluate the consequences of accepting circular reasoning as valid in formal logical arguments and its implications for knowledge acquisition.
  • Accepting circular reasoning as valid can lead to serious consequences in formal logical arguments, as it can create a false sense of understanding and confidence in flawed conclusions. This practice stifles genuine inquiry and exploration since it does not encourage new evidence or perspectives. Consequently, when circular reasoning infiltrates knowledge acquisition processes, it hinders progress and critical thinking, ultimately compromising the integrity of conclusions drawn from such arguments.

Related terms

Logical Fallacy: An error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid or unsound, often making it misleading.

Premise: A statement or proposition that forms the basis for a logical argument, from which a conclusion is drawn.

Deductive Reasoning: A form of reasoning where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, often used to validate arguments.