Which Of These Is An Example Of Circular Reasoning

Understanding Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning, also known as begging the question, is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end with. In other words, the reasoner cannot demonstrate the truth of the conclusion without assuming the truth of the conclusion. This flaw in reasoning is commonly found in arguments and can weaken the credibility of the argument if not addressed.

Examples of Circular Reasoning

There are various examples of circular reasoning that can be identified in everyday conversations, debates, and writings. These examples demonstrate how individuals may unknowingly use circular reasoning in their arguments. Identifying these examples can help improve critical thinking and logical analysis.

1. The Bible is true because it is the word of God.

In this example, the reasoning is circular because it assumes the truth of the Bible’s claim without providing external evidence. The argument states that the Bible is true because it is the word of God, and it is the word of God because the Bible says so. This circular reasoning fails to provide any concrete evidence for the truth of the Bible’s claims.

2. I am a good driver because I have never been in a car accident.

While the premise may be true, the conclusion is based on the assumption that not being in a car accident is the sole criteria for being a good driver. The reasoning here is circular because it uses the conclusion (being a good driver) to support the premise (not being in a car accident) without providing any additional evidence or analysis.

3. The school is prestigious because it is known for its excellence.

This example of circular reasoning uses the conclusion (being prestigious) to support the premise (known for excellence) without providing any specific criteria or evidence for what makes the school prestigious. The reasoning assumes the truth of the conclusion without offering any substantive evidence or reasoning.

Identifying Circular Reasoning

Identifying circular reasoning can be challenging, as it requires a keen understanding of logical fallacies and a critical eye for spotting faulty reasoning. However, there are a few key indicators that can help individuals identify circular reasoning in arguments:

Circular Definition: When the conclusion is restated in different words in the premise, leading to a circular definition.

Lack of Evidence: Arguments that rely solely on the conclusion to support the premise without providing any additional evidence or analysis.

Circular Justification: Using the conclusion to justify the premise without offering any external evidence or reasoning.

By being aware of these indicators, individuals can improve their ability to identify circular reasoning in various arguments and conversations, leading to improved critical thinking skills.

Addressing Circular Reasoning

Once circular reasoning has been identified in an argument, it is important to address it in order to strengthen the credibility of the argument. Here are a few strategies for addressing circular reasoning:

Provide External Evidence: Supporting the premise with external evidence, data, or logical analysis to demonstrate the truth of the conclusion.

Challenge Assumptions: Questioning the underlying assumptions that support the circular reasoning, leading to a more rigorous examination of the argument.

Offer Counterarguments: Presenting alternative viewpoints or counterarguments to the circular reasoning, highlighting the need for more comprehensive reasoning.

By addressing circular reasoning in this manner, individuals can strengthen their arguments and establish a more solid foundation for their claims.

Conclusion

Circular reasoning is a common logical fallacy that can weaken the credibility of arguments and reasoning. By understanding and identifying examples of circular reasoning, individuals can improve their critical thinking skills and develop more robust and compelling arguments. Addressing circular reasoning through the presentation of evidence, challenging assumptions, and offering counterarguments can help strengthen the credibility and validity of arguments.