The fallacy of circular reasoning is an argument that assumes that what it is trying to prove is true. Instead of providing evidence, he simply repeats the conclusion, making the argument logically incoherent.
Cause
People may unintentionally commit circular reasoning error because they are convinced of their own assumptions and take them as given. Sometimes circular reasoning is deliberately used to mask the speaker's lack of understanding or evidence.
An argument consists of one or more statements (premise) and an assertion (conclusion). A premise is any reason or evidence that supports the conclusion of the argument. In a good argument, we say that a conclusion follows from the premise. In other words, it is supported by the evidence presented in the premise.
In a circular argument, the same proposal appears both as a premise and as a conclusion: the argument is valid. However, self-validation is bad reasoning: the assertion of an argument must be supported by actual evidence.
A circular reasoning fallacy consists of an argument that begins with a premise (A) and moves to a conclusion (B), where A is logically equivalent to B, explicitly or implicitly. In other words, both the premise and the conclusion rely on the truth of the other:
A is true, because B is true
B is true, because A is true
At the end of a circular reasoning fallacy, the argument will have come full circle, without having actually proven anything. He will use the fact that A can prove B and vice versa. This happens because the speaker already believes the statement to be true.
Examples
Simply assuming that a statement is true does not serve as evidence to support that statement. The weakness of such arguments is particularly evident in certain cases: “X is true. The proof of this statement is that X is true.
Circular reasoning fallacy in politics
“Only an untrustworthy person would run for president. The fact that politicians are not trustworthy is proof of that.”
This claim relies on its own premise (i.e., “politicians are untrustworthy”) to support its conclusion that only an untrustworthy person would run for president.
Although good arguments can be found for the existence of God, people often resort to circular reasoning due to their own deeply held beliefs, which they assume to be self-evident.
Circular reasoning error in religion
Person 1: “God must exist. " (HAS)
Person 2: “How do you know?” »
Person 1: “Because that’s what the Bible says.” » (B)
Person 2: “Why should I believe the Bible?” »
Person 1: “Because it is God’s divine work.” " (VS)
In the argument structure above, note that the premises depend on each other for their validity:
Statement A is true because of B.
Statement B is true because of C.
Statement C is true because of A.
this is problematic for A is both a reason supporting the argument and is itself supported by the argument, forming a circle.
Circular reasoning is usually (but not always) fallacious.
Fallacious argument from circular reasoning
Reporter: “Please explain the current economic recession. »
Economist: “A lot of people are leaving the state. For example, the situation is very bad in the construction sector, because there is no need for new housing.”
Reporter: “Why are people leaving the state? »
Economist: “Because the economy is depressed. People can't find jobs given how slow the economy is right now.”
Here, the sequence of questions and answers has come full circle: the economy is in bad shape because people are leaving, and people are leaving because of the bad economy.
On the one hand, this seems like an example of circular reasoning. On the other hand, the circularity of this argument is due to the way things work in real life: if people leave, things get worse. And if the situation gets worse, even more people leave. So this is not an error.
How to avoid making a circular reasoning error?
Form your hypotheses and change them to letters (A, B, C, etc.). By rewriting your text with the letters, you will quickly see if you are using circular reasoning.
EN 
FR