Circular Reasoning and Begging the Question: Examples and How to Respond
Also called: begging the question, circular argument, petitio principii, assuming the conclusion
Updated · 5 min read · 5 sources
The short answer
Circular reasoning is an argument whose conclusion is already assumed in its premises, so it ends where it started: 'It was a harmless joke because it didn't hurt anyone.' It's also called begging the question. The argument sounds complete but gives no independent reason to believe the conclusion. In everyday speech, 'begs the question' usually means something else: 'raises the question'.
What is circular reasoning?
Circular reasoning offers, as support for a claim, the claim itself, usually in different words. 'You can trust me because I'm honest' assumes exactly what it's supposed to show. Each part of the argument depends on the others, so nothing outside the loop holds it up.
A circular argument isn't necessarily false. The conclusion might be true. The problem is that the argument adds no reason to believe it. If you doubted the conclusion before, the argument gives you nothing new, because you'd have to accept the conclusion to accept the premise.
What does begging the question mean?
In logic, begging the question is the traditional name for circular reasoning. It's an old translation of the Latin petitio principii, roughly 'assuming the starting point'. An argument begs the question when its premise quietly assumes the conclusion.
In everyday English, 'that begs the question' almost always means 'that raises the question': 'The meeting ran late, which begs the question of why we have it at all.' This usage is extremely common and widely understood. It's not a fallacy, just a different meaning of the same phrase. If you're writing about logic or arguing with a stickler, 'raises the question' avoids the confusion.
Circular Reasoning and Begging the Question examples
How circular reasoning sounds in personal arguments
At home, circular arguments are rarely as obvious as 'I'm right because I'm right'. They hide behind synonyms, so the conclusion and the reason sound like two different things:
- 'You're overreacting, because this isn't a big deal.' (Not a big deal is what overreacting means here.)
- 'An even split is fair because splitting equally is the fair way to do it.'
- 'I'm a good listener, so if you felt unheard, you weren't saying anything important.'
- 'Our family doesn't do that because it's not the kind of thing we do.'
- 'I don't trust him because he isn't trustworthy.'
Why circular arguments are convincing
Confidence and repetition do a lot of persuading. When a claim is stated firmly and then restated as a reason, it feels like support has been given. Synonyms make the loop harder to see: 'harmless' and 'didn't hurt anyone' sound like two facts, but they're the same fact.
Circular reasoning also tends to appear when someone hasn't put their real reason into words. 'An even split is fair because it's fair' often stands in for a real reason they haven't said out loud, like 'we all use the kitchen and living room the same amount'. Helping them find it is more useful than scoring the point.
How to respond to circular reasoning
Ask for a reason that doesn't already assume the answer: 'What makes it harmless, apart from that it didn't hurt anyone?' Do it with curiosity, not as a gotcha. Most people will either find a real reason, which you can then discuss, or realize they don't have one yet.
Another useful question is what would change their mind. If nothing could, the disagreement isn't about evidence anymore, and it's better to say so. Circular arguments are close relatives of loaded questions, which also build the answer into the setup, and of arguments that shift the burden of proof by treating a claim as true until someone disproves it.
What circular reasoning is not
A definition isn't a circular argument. 'A bachelor is an unmarried man' isn't trying to prove anything. Neither is restating a point for clarity, as long as you then give a reason.
And citing a source isn't circular unless the source's authority rests on the claim itself. 'The study is right because the study says so' is circular; 'the study is right because three other teams replicated it' is not. For when quoting an expert stops being a good reason, see appeal to authority. And if you suspect a conversation is going in circles, our free argument judge can spot where a reply restated a claim instead of supporting it.
What to say
I hear that you think it was harmless. What makes it harmless, apart from that?
That sounds like the same point in different words. What's the reason underneath it?
What would change your mind? If nothing could, maybe we're not really arguing about facts.
Try finishing this without the word fair: an even split makes sense because...
In an argument right now?
Type both sides and get a fair verdict, with the fallacies on each side. Free.
Questions people ask
What is an example of circular reasoning?
'You can trust me because I always tell the truth.' Whether you always tell the truth is exactly what trusting you depends on, so the argument assumes its own conclusion.
Is begging the question the same as circular reasoning?
In logic, yes: begging the question is the traditional name for an argument whose premise assumes its conclusion. In everyday speech, 'begs the question' usually means 'raises the question', which is a different idea.
Is it wrong to say 'begs the question' when I mean 'raises the question'?
It's a very common, widely understood usage, and most listeners will know what you mean. In writing about logic or arguments, 'raises the question' is clearer because it can't be confused with the fallacy.
Is circular reasoning always wrong?
The conclusion of a circular argument can still be true. The argument just doesn't give any independent reason to believe it, so it can't persuade anyone who doubts the conclusion.
Sources
Keep reading
- FallaciesLoaded Question FallacyA loaded question fallacy is a question that smuggles in an assumption the other person has not agreed to, so any direct yes or no answer seems to admit it. "Why do you always embarrass me in front of my friends?" assumes you always do. The fair move is to answer the assumption first.
- FallaciesBurden of Proof Fallacy and the Appeal to Ignorance, ExplainedThe burden of proof fallacy is making a claim and then demanding that others disprove it, instead of supporting it yourself. Its close cousin, the appeal to ignorance, treats a lack of evidence as proof: "you can't prove it didn't happen, so it did." The person making a claim usually carries the burden of backing it up.
- FallaciesAppeal to Authority FallacyAn appeal to authority is a fallacy when a claim is treated as settled just because someone with status said it, especially when that person isn't an expert on the topic, is quoted out of context or disagrees with most experts. Citing real expertise on its own subject is a good reason. The fallacy is using a name in place of evidence.
- FallaciesEquivocation FallacyThe equivocation fallacy is using one word in two different senses within the same argument, so a conclusion seems to follow when it doesn't. "You told me to be more spontaneous, so why are you mad I booked a trip without asking?" slides from spontaneous dates to spontaneous spending. Most equivocation in arguments is accidental.
- FallaciesNo True Scotsman FallacyThe no true Scotsman fallacy protects a sweeping claim from a counterexample by redefining the group: 'No real friend would forget your birthday.' 'Mine did.' 'Then she was never a real friend.' Instead of admitting the claim was wrong, the speaker changes the definition so nothing could ever disprove it. The name comes from philosopher Antony Flew.
The ArgueResolver app · iPhone and Android
Record the argument. Get the verdict.
ArgueResolver listens while you talk it out, works out who said what, and gives an honest verdict on what was actually said, with compromises and steps to fix it.
Free to start · See how it works
