Circular Reasoning Fallacy – Definition & Examples

Fallacies are frequent mistakes in logic that can quietly weaken the rationality of your arguments. Frequently, if one experiences a sense of inconsistency in their arguments, it is likely due to the practice of circular reasoning. Understanding the circular reasoning fallacy is key to effective communication, as it helps us avoid being misled by illogical arguments and enables us to construct stronger, more rational arguments.

Definition: Circular reasoning fallacy

The circular reasoning fallacy, also known as “begging the question” or “petitio principii,” is an informal logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in its premises. The error lies in the content of the argument, rather than its form. This informal fallacy creates a loop in reasoning and occurs when the initial statement to be proven is included, either explicitly or implicitly, within the premises, thus creating a circular argument. Instead of offering real evidence, the argument simply restates the conclusion in different terms or assumes the truth of what it’s supposed to prove. This makes the argument logically invalid, as it does not provide an independent reason for accepting the conclusion.

How does the circular reasoning fallacy work?

The circular reasoning fallacy works by using its conclusion as its justification, creating a self-referential loop in an invalid argument. The argument starts with an idea or premise (A) and ends with a conclusion (Z), both of them being related to each other, either implicitly or explicitly.

In other words:

• A is true because of Z
• Z is true because of A

In other words, the premise and the conclusion depend on each other being true. This means the reason given for a claim is simply a restatement of the claim itself, without any external evidence, proof, or logical support. It fails as a logical argument because it doesn’t actually prove anything; it just assumes the conclusion is true from the start. In the end, the argument of the circular reasoning fallacy will have come full circle, without having proven anything.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument, also known as circular reasoning or circular logic, is a type of poor reasoning where the argument loops back to its starting point without providing any substantive evidence or proof.

The concept of circular arguments traces back to Aristotle’s “Metaphysics,” written around 350 BCE, where it is described as “making an assumption at the beginning.” Its Latin counterpart, “petitio principii,” often used in formal logic, translates directly from the Greek “petitio” meaning “assumption” and “principii” meaning “from the beginning.”

In a well-structured argument, the conclusion comes from the reasons or evidence given, which are called premises. The evidence supports the conclusion. The premise, as well as the conclusion, are identical.

General structure of circular reasoning

1. Starting with a claim
2. Using the conclusion as evidence
3. Reasserting the conclusion

However, in the circular reasoning fallacy, the main point is used both as a reason and as a conclusion. It’s like saying something is true because it says it’s true. This is not a strong way to argue in your academic writing because a good argument needs real evidence, not just repeating the same point. This fallacy undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the writing.

Examples of the circular reasoning fallacy

The circular reasoning fallacy often appears in various forms in real-life discussions, debates, and even in some forms of advertising or political rhetoric. The following example illustrates the fallacy by suggesting that the news article is trustworthy because it is from a reliable source.

This is a circular argument because the argument’s premise (the source reports the truth) is the same as its conclusion (it’s trustworthy), without any independent evidence. Below, you’ll find some more examples.

Psychology behind the circular reasoning fallacy

People commit the circular reasoning fallacy due to their conviction of their assumptions and assuming them as given. Occasionally, circular reasoning is employed purposefully to conceal the speakers’ lack of comprehension or evidence. The psychology behind circular reasoning is quite intricate and can be understood through several psychological principles and cognitive biases: This fallacy may be committed intentionally as well as unintentionally by individuals because they are convinced of their own assumptions and take them for granted. As a matter of fact, some people use the circular reasoning fallacy to hide their lack of knowledge or proof. Below, you’ll find some other reasons that might lead to circular reasoning:

Some individuals might not have sufficient knowledge or evidence regarding a specific topic, leading them to unintentionally engage in circular reasoning. They believe their assumptions and take them for granted.

People naturally prefer information that confirms their existing beliefs. In circular arguments, they may unintentionally structure arguments to align with these beliefs, rather than seeking objective evidence.

In some cases, circular reasoning can result from a misunderstanding of what constitutes a valid argument or from a failure to communicate the underlying reasoning effectively.