circular argument

USAGE SUMMARY

'circular argument' is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it to describe a situation in which someone uses the same argument to support itself, such as when someone argues that a certain statement is true because they have already stated that it is. For example: "John's argument that he is right because he said he was right is just a circular argument."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

51 human-written examples

But that's a circular argument.

The New York Times

It is a perfectly circular argument.

The Economist

15 fact, is a circular argument?

Stanford University

But this view often hides a circular argument.

The Guardian - Opinion

Of course this is all a circular argument.

The Guardian

In this circular argument, there's plenty of road left yet.

The Guardian

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

6 human-written examples

Consider a premise-circular argument that deduces p2 from p1 and p2.

SEP

A rule-circular argument, by contrast, is an argument of which the conclusion asserts something about an inferential rule that is used in the very same argument.

SEP

The first of those two cases is a case of a circular argument an argument for the conclusion P which eventually appeals to P as its own ground.

SEP

At the heart of Gödel's theorem he finds the idea of self-reference, which can be viewed as a circular argument collapsed into itself.

The New York Times - Books

"I say, 'Call me 'stupid.'" The ensuing discussion tends to devolve into a circular argument, so let's move on.

Los Angeles Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When identifying a "circular argument", clearly explain why the reasoning is flawed. Point out how the conclusion is already assumed in the premises to effectively highlight the logical fallacy.

Common error

Avoid labeling an argument as a "circular argument" simply because the points are interconnected or build upon each other. A true circularity exists only when the conclusion is used to support the premises that lead to it, creating a self-referential loop.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "circular argument" functions primarily as a noun phrase, typically acting as the subject or object of a sentence. It identifies a specific type of logical fallacy, as highlighted by Ludwig AI, where the premise of an argument assumes the conclusion, leading to flawed reasoning.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

42%

Academia

25%

Science

20%

Less common in

Wiki

7%

Encyclopedias

3%

Formal & Business

3%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "circular argument" is a commonly used and grammatically correct term for describing a logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premise. As Ludwig AI confirms, it's used to critique flawed reasoning across various domains. Predominantly found in News & Media, Academia, and Science, understanding "circular argument" is crucial for identifying weaknesses in arguments. To avoid misidentification, ensure the conclusion truly supports its premise. Related terms include "begging the question" and "petitio principii". Being able to use and identify this fallacy allows for more cogent and persuasive communication.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

begging the question

This phrase refers to a type of logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premise, similar to a circular argument but often less obvious.

reasoning in a circle

This is a more descriptive phrase that captures the iterative nature of circular arguments, where the conclusion leads back to the premise.

petitio principii

This is the Latin term for begging the question, offering a more formal or academic alternative to "circular argument".

assuming the conclusion

This phrase highlights the core issue of circular arguments: the argument presumes the truth of what it's trying to prove.

tautological reasoning

This emphasizes the redundancy and lack of informative content in the reasoning, highlighting that the conclusion merely restates the premise.

self-referential argument

This highlights the argument's reliance on itself, emphasizing the lack of external validation or independent support.

fallacious reasoning

This is a broader term indicating flawed logic, encompassing circular arguments as one specific type of error.

unsound reasoning

Similar to 'fallacious reasoning', it suggests that the argument does not hold up to scrutiny due to logical problems, which could include circularity.

invalid argument

This term focuses on the structural flaw in the argument, indicating that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, potentially due to circularity.

logic loop

This is an informal term suggesting that the argument gets stuck in a cycle without reaching a valid conclusion.

FAQs

What exactly defines a "circular argument"?

A "circular argument", also known as begging the question, is a logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in one or more of the premises. It essentially uses the conclusion to support itself, creating a closed loop in the reasoning.

How can I identify a "circular argument"?

Look for arguments where the evidence provided relies on the very point being argued. If you remove the conclusion from the premises, the argument should fall apart. For example, arguing that a policy is effective because it's already in place is a type of "circular argument".

What's the difference between a "circular argument" and "correlation/causation"?

A "circular argument" involves a logical fallacy where the conclusion is used to support the premises. Confusing "correlation with causation" means assuming that because two things are related, one causes the other, without sufficient evidence. They are distinct errors in reasoning.

What are some alternative phrases for "circular argument"?

Alternatives include "begging the question", "petitio principii" (the Latin term), or simply saying that the argument "assumes what it tries to prove".