Logic: Circular Reasoning

Circular Reasoning, also known as circular logic or begging the question, is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is essentially restated in the premises, without providing any new information or evidence. This fallacy creates the appearance of a valid argument, but in reality, it is a tautological reasoning where the conclusion is assumed to be true from the outset.

Here's a detailed explanation with examples:

1. Circular Reasoning Example 1: "I know I'm right because I'm always correct."

   In this example, the conclusion ("I'm right") is restated in the premise ("I'm always correct"), without offering any additional support or evidence. The argument simply assumes the conclusion to be true.

2. Circular Reasoning Example 2: "The Bible is true because it says so, and it's the word of God."

   This argument assumes the truth of the Bible by using the Bible itself as evidence. The conclusion is based on the premise, which relies on the same conclusion. It doesn't provide any external evidence or reasoning to support the claim.

3. Circular Reasoning Example 3: "You can trust him because he's very trustworthy."

   This argument restates the conclusion ("You can trust him") in the premise ("he's very trustworthy"), but it doesn't provide any independent reasons or evidence for why the person is trustworthy.

4. Circular Reasoning Example 4: "The law is just because it's based on principles of justice."

   This argument doesn't provide an actual explanation of why the law is just; it merely restates the conclusion ("the law is just") in the premise ("based on principles of justice").

5. Circular Reasoning Example 5: "This medication is effective because it works."

   In this case, the argument assumes the effectiveness of the medication based solely on the fact that it works, without explaining how or why it works.

6. Circular Reasoning Example 6: "Freedom of speech is important because people should have the right to express their opinions freely."

   This argument assumes the importance of freedom of speech based on the premise that people should have the right to express their opinions. However, it doesn't provide any external justification for why freedom of speech is important.

Circular reasoning can be deceptive because it creates the illusion of a coherent argument while actually providing no meaningful support for the conclusion. To avoid this fallacy, it's crucial to ensure that the premises of an argument provide new information or evidence that genuinely supports the conclusion, rather than just restating it.