Circular reasoning

Definition

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise, creating a loop of reasoning that does not provide valid support. This type of reasoning fails to offer any real evidence or justification, as it simply restates the initial claim in different words. It often leads to confusion and weakens the argument being made.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Circular reasoning often appears in debates and discussions where individuals try to validate their claims without providing concrete evidence.
2. This fallacy can make arguments seem more convincing at first glance, but upon closer examination, it reveals a lack of sound reasoning.
3. Common phrases associated with circular reasoning include 'the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible' or 'I am trustworthy because I always tell the truth.'
4. Identifying circular reasoning is crucial for critical thinking, as it allows one to distinguish between valid arguments and flawed logic.
5. Circular reasoning is often unintentional; however, recognizing it helps improve argumentative clarity and logical coherence.

Review Questions

• How can circular reasoning undermine the effectiveness of an argument in a debate?
  • Circular reasoning undermines the effectiveness of an argument because it fails to provide any new information or evidence to support its conclusion. Instead of moving the discussion forward, it simply restates the original claim without addressing counterarguments or offering valid justification. This lack of substance can lead to confusion and weaken the overall persuasiveness of the argument.
• What are some examples of circular reasoning in everyday conversation, and how can they be identified?
  • Examples of circular reasoning in everyday conversation include statements like 'I deserve this promotion because I work hard' without specifying how hard work translates to merit. Identifying these examples involves looking for claims that simply restate their conclusion without providing evidence. By focusing on whether the premises genuinely support the conclusion rather than just repeating it, one can spot circular reasoning.
• Evaluate the impact of recognizing circular reasoning on improving argumentative skills and critical thinking.
  • Recognizing circular reasoning significantly enhances argumentative skills and critical thinking by promoting clearer, more logically sound arguments. When individuals are aware of this fallacy, they are better equipped to construct compelling arguments that stand up to scrutiny. Additionally, understanding how to avoid circular reasoning helps one critically assess others' arguments, fostering a deeper engagement with various perspectives and ultimately leading to more productive discussions.

Related terms

Begging the Question: A form of circular reasoning where an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it.

Logical Fallacy: An error in reasoning that undermines the logical validity of an argument.

Red Herring: A diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by introducing irrelevant information.