Circular reasoning
logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins the premise with what they are trying to conclude with
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, lit. 'circle in proving'; also known as circular logic) is a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. As a consequence, the argument becomes a matter of faith and fails to persuade those who do not already accept it. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
An example of circular reasoning is: “This statement is correct because it says it is correct.”
Common forms
Circular reasoning can appear in several common forms, each illustrating a different way the conclusion and premise reinforce each other without independent support.
Restatement (begging the question)
The conclusion is simply a rephrasing of the premise. (For example, "This medicine works because it is effective.")
Character or trait loop
A personal quality is justified by behavior, which is then justified by the same quality. ("He is honest because he always tells the truth, and we know he tells the truth because he is honest.")
Definition loop
A term is defined in a way that refers back to itself.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Circular reasoning” is logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins the premise with what they are trying to conclude with. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Circular, reasoning and logical, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins the premise with what they are trying to conclude with” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6011160. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Circular reasoning”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Circular reasoning primary sources, Circular reasoning archive and Circular research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Circular reasoning”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Circular reasoning” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.