Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed, openly or in reworded form, in one of its premises. Because the argument depends on the point it sets out to prove, it offers no independent support for that point.
The pattern is often hard to spot because the conclusion reappears in different words. In plant care, a common form explains a result with a label that is itself defined by the result: a plant declines because the species is “fussy,” and the evidence that it is fussy is that it declines. The explanation sounds complete but predicts nothing and cannot be tested. A non-circular explanation identifies a cause, such as low light or a saturated root zone, that can be measured or changed independently of the outcome.
Circular reasoning is also called begging the question, a formal term distinct from the everyday use of “begs the question” to mean “raises the question.” It differs from confirmation bias, which is a tendency in how evidence is gathered and weighed rather than a structural flaw within a single argument.
See Also
