Circular Reasoning
Fallacy Summary: Use a conclusion as evidence for itself.
The premise and conclusion restate each other, so no independent support exists for the claim. Research context: Informal-logic and argumentation research treats fallacies as structural problems in reasoning. A conclusion can sound persuasive while still being weak if the link between premises, evidence, and conclusion is not valid. Pattern-specific focus: Use a conclusion as evidence for itself. Practical review method: separate factual claims from interpretation, check source quality, and test whether the conclusion survives alternative explanations.
“did the league standards come from? They came from all the prior facilities that received subsidies that were able to make them more opulent and luxurious and cater to wealthy fans.” When the Chiefs relocate to Wyandotte”
Explains standards as resulting from subsidies, which justify more subsidies, creating a cycle.
How to recognize circular reasoning yourself
- A rhetorical move replaces proof (for example, popularity, authority, or insult).
- Causation is claimed without ruling out alternatives or coincidence.
- The argument is reduced to an artificial either/or choice.
- Emotion is used to drive agreement where evidence should carry the burden.
Verification questions
- Which premise is doing the critical work, and is it actually supported?
- Does the conclusion logically follow, or does rhetoric bridge the gap?
- What alternative explanation would still fit the observed facts?
Failed to load people summary; Failed to load publications summary; Failed to load article summary
No cohort chart data available.
High offenders
Authors
No offenders available.
Publications
No offenders available.