Circular Reasoning: Definition and Examples

What Is Circular Reasoning?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy characterized by using a statement's conclusion as part of its own premise. It occurs when an argument implicitly or explicitly presupposes the truth of its conclusion, offering no independent validation beyond restating or rephrasing the original claim.

Key Insights

• Circular reasoning provides no independent evidence; the conclusion restates its premise.
• Complex phrasing or technical jargon can obscure circularity.
• Identification depends on evaluating whether premises can independently support their conclusions.

Arguments based on circular reasoning often appear credible initially due to subtle rewording or complexity, yet they generate self-referential loops lacking external justification. Unlike other fallacies that involve weak or unrelated premises, circular reasoning remains entirely within the confines of its initial assumption, preventing progression toward meaningful verification.

This fallacy is also referred to as begging the question, a term scholars sometimes reserve specifically for arguments where an unstated assumption directly mirrors the conclusion. Regardless of terminology, the fundamental issue remains unchanged—treating the conclusion as proven by restating it in the premise.

Why it happens

Circular Reasoning often emerges when individuals seek reassurance of deeply held beliefs and avoid challenges or new evidence. The mind slips into a closed loop, confirming the belief through rephrasing rather than external validation. It may also arise from ambiguous or unclear definitions of key terms, allowing speakers to shift meanings without engaging new evidence.

Limited external evidence can also invite Circular Reasoning. With no robust data available, assumptions become stand-ins for actual proof, forming the very loop that creates logical circularity. This often goes unnoticed precisely because no one questions the original assumption.

Consider a simple example: a job seeker states they are the “best candidate because they are simply better than others.” While confident, the candidate offers absolutely no separate evidence. Here, premise and conclusion have fused: the candidate supports the claim using language that is effectively identical.

The mind’s defense mechanism

At times, individuals use Circular Reasoning subconsciously as an internal shield. This is related to confirmation bias, a cognitive tendency where one seeks evidence validating their existing beliefs and dismisses external challenges. The mind protects beliefs by using those beliefs as premises—a safety net that prevents hard questioning.

Familiar illusions

Circular Reasoning can subtly seep into everyday dialogue, such as when someone claims, “This painting is excellent because it was painted by an excellent artist.” This logic does not demonstrate excellence through detail, technique, or objective factors. It relies solely on the presumed authority of the artist’s label, circling back to the initial assumption without independent evidence.

Differences from other fallacies

Circular Reasoning shares similarities with other fallacies but maintains important distinctions. Hasty generalizations rely on insufficient, limited data. Non sequiturs leap from unrelated premises to conclusions. An Ad hominem attack diverts attention from the argument to the person.

Unlike those, Circular Reasoning repeatedly folds the same claim back onto itself, producing a self-contained logical circuit. Some people confuse Circular Reasoning with a tautology, such as “All bachelors are unmarried men.” However, tautologies differ significantly—they are inherently true and logically consistent statements but lack argumentative power because they do not provide new information. Circular Reasoning, conversely, disguises redundancy as proof.

Circular Reasoning in theoretical frameworks

Philosophical discourse often distinguishes circular arguments from axiomatic truths—statements so basic they are self-evident without external proof (such as “existence exists”). Circular Reasoning occurs when a debater disguises a non-axiomatic idea as undeniably axiomatic, escaping necessary justification and external scrutiny.

Empiricism highlights this danger prominently, emphasizing observable evidence and objective testing. If researchers cling to claims identical with their hypotheses, their experiments become meaningless loops with no genuine discovery.

Uses in persuasive rhetoric

Persuasive speakers sometimes deliberately invoke Circular Reasoning to create illusionary substantiation—especially in slogans or catchy phrases. For example, advertising may boast a product as “trustworthy because people trust it.” Such phrasing offers no genuine external reasons or comparative testing, relying entirely upon existing perception.

Political discourses similarly deploy circular reasoning: “This policy is the right choice because it is correct,” energizes the convinced but leaves external observers unconvinced. These rhetorical circles provide an impression of soundness without truly demonstrating it.

Circular Reasoning in technology discussions

In technology, Circular Reasoning often appears when advocates conflate popularity or familiarity with objective superiority. For example, a promoter of a technical framework may claim, “This platform is best because leading companies use it,” ignoring concrete performance benchmarks, reliability measures, or security assessments.

Another example emerges when developers claim an algorithm is secure because it has gained recognition. Unless proven independently through audits or rigorous testing, such recognition itself is meaningless. Technological discussions and early-adopter enthusiasm frequently lapse into these circular patterns, sidestepping genuine analysis in favor of repeated assertions.

How it leads to stagnation

Circular Reasoning may initially seem benign, but it risks organizational stagnation. When teams base projects solely upon internal beliefs and conversations repeat the same ideas without external investigation, productive exploration stops.

Repeated reliance on circular logic also hinders innovation. Leaders declaring approaches correct “because we’ve always done it this way” discourage new insights and ideas. Rigid circular policies stall progress and limit organizational adaptability.

Complex forms of Circular Reasoning

Circular Reasoning also exists in elaborate, multi-step arguments—complex enough to disguise their circularity. Scholars label such layered arguments as "cascading begs the question." In these cases, authors use multiple intermediate steps to justify initial assumptions indirectly, ultimately creating a logical circle in disguise.

Visualizing the cycle

In this visualization, a complex argument chains multiple premises that ultimately loop back, reaffirming the initial assumption without external validation or independent reasoning.

FAQ

Are all repeated arguments circular by nature?

Not necessarily. Circular Reasoning requires that the conclusion and premise be essentially identical. Merely repeating or developing an idea with additional supporting details or independent evidence does not make an argument circular. Genuine elaboration or explanation with new evidence can strengthen and clarify premises, distinguishing a valid repeated argument from circular reasoning.

How can someone avoid falling into these loops?

To avoid Circular Reasoning, explicitly question all foundational assumptions. Demand clearly articulated evidence or external data to substantiate claims. Remain open to external viewpoints and independent verification rather than relying on self-contained assumptions. Awareness of common forms of Circular Reasoning—from subtle to complex—helps maintain logically valid and persuasive argumentation.

Does Circular Reasoning always happen intentionally?

Not always. While some individuals intentionally deploy Circular Reasoning to avoid scrutiny or quickly persuade an audience, others unknowingly fall into it due to cognitive biases like confirmation bias. Strong personal beliefs may inadvertently produce self-validating loops that go unnoticed until deliberately challenged by external questions or contrary evidence.

End note

When arguments loop back on assumptions, genuine discovery halts. Identifying Circular Reasoning early empowers leaders, developers, and critical thinkers to seek robust evidence, anchor arguments in verifiable facts, and promote effective inquiry. Avoiding circular loops improves clarity, fosters innovation, and enriches discourse.