Circular Reasoning: Assuming the Conclusion

What Is Circular Reasoning?

Circular reasoning, also known as "begging the question," is a formal fallacy where the conclusion is assumed within the premises. Instead of providing independent evidence to support the conclusion, the argument merely restates it in a different way. This fallacy fails to advance reasoning, as it relies on the very claim it is trying to prove.

• Structure:

  • Premise: P is true because P is true.

  • Conclusion: Therefore, P is true.

Examples of Circular Reasoning

1. Religious Example:

   • "The Bible is true because it is the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so."

   • Why It’s a Fallacy:
     The argument assumes the Bible’s authority without providing independent evidence.

2. Scientific Example:

   • "Evolution is true because we see evidence of evolution in fossils, and fossils prove evolution."

   • Why It’s a Fallacy:
     The argument assumes the validity of evolution without presenting external verification.

3. Educational Example:

   • "Students learn better with this method because it’s the best teaching method."

   • Why It’s a Fallacy:
     The claim assumes its own conclusion without offering justification.

Why Is This a Fallacy?

Circular reasoning is fallacious because it offers no substantive support for its conclusion. Instead of providing evidence, the argument restates the conclusion in a slightly altered form, making it unconvincing and logically invalid.

How to Avoid Circular Reasoning

1. Provide Independent Evidence:

   • Ensure that your premises offer support that does not rely on the conclusion itself.

2. Question the Premises:

   • Ask whether the premises can stand alone or if they depend on accepting the conclusion.

3. Use External Verification:

   • Support your claim with evidence or reasoning external to the argument.

Quiz: Test Your Understanding

1. Question 1:
   Is this argument circular?

   • "We must follow the law because it is the law."

   • Hint: Does this argument offer any independent justification for following the law?

2. Question 2:
   Identify the fallacy:

   • "This medication works because it is effective."

   • What’s missing from this argument?

3. Question 3:
   Which of the following avoids circular reasoning?

   • A) "You should trust me because I am trustworthy."

   • B) "You should trust me because I have consistently provided accurate information in the past."

Conclusion

Circular reasoning highlights the importance of supporting arguments with independent and credible evidence. Recognizing this fallacy strengthens critical thinking and ensures that arguments are not simply self-referential.