As a domain expert in the field of logic and critical thinking, I am well-versed in the analysis and identification of various logical fallacies. One such fallacy is the circular argument, a common yet flawed method of reasoning that is often employed, either intentionally or unintentionally, in attempts to persuade or justify a position.

A circular argument, also known as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning," is a type of logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is essentially assumed in one of the premises. This means that the arguer is not providing any new information or evidence to support the conclusion; instead, they are merely restating it in different words. The circularity of the argument lies in the fact that the conclusion is used as a premise to support itself, creating a closed loop of reasoning that does not advance the argument forward.

The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the problem arises when the premises themselves are not independently verifiable or are based on the conclusion they are supposed to support. This creates a situation where the argument appears to be logically sound, but in reality, it is not providing any substantive evidence or reasoning.

Circular arguments are problematic for several reasons:


1. Lack of Evidence: They do not provide any new evidence or reasoning to support the conclusion. The argument is self-referential and does not engage with external facts or logic.


2. Misleading Appearance of Validity: Because the structure of a circular argument can be logically valid, it may appear to be a sound argument to those who do not scrutinize the premises closely.


3. Prevention of Progress: In a debate or discussion, circular reasoning prevents the advancement of understanding because it does not address counterarguments or alternative viewpoints.


4. Manipulation: It can be used to manipulate or deceive an audience by creating the illusion of a well-reasoned argument when, in fact, no new ground is being covered.

To identify a circular argument, one should look for signs that the premises are simply restatements of the conclusion or that the argument relies on the assumption that the conclusion is already true. For example, if someone argues that "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God," this is a classic example of circular reasoning. Both premises rely on the truth of the conclusion (the existence of God) to be valid.

It is important to challenge circular arguments by asking for evidence that does not presuppose the conclusion. This can help to uncover the lack of substance in the argument and promote more rigorous and open-minded discussion.

read more >>

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.read more >>