Circular Reasoning
LSAT glossary · Logical Reasoning
Definition
A reasoning flaw in which the conclusion is assumed — rather than established — by the premises. The argument "proves" its conclusion only by restating it in different words, so the premises and conclusion say the same thing and no independent evidence is offered. Classic LSAT example: "Reliable news sources are trustworthy because they consistently provide information that can be relied upon." LSAT phrasing: "presupposes what it sets out to establish" or "assumes the truth of what it is trying to prove."
Circular Reasoning in plain English
Circular reasoning is "proving" a claim by just saying it again in fancier words — you go in a circle and never actually offer new evidence. "Reliable sources are trustworthy because they consistently give information you can rely on" sounds like a reason, but the "reason" is really the conclusion wearing a costume. It's like answering "Why is she the best?" with "Because nobody is better than her" — you haven't learned anything. On the LSAT this is flagged as "presupposes what it sets out to establish" or "assumes the truth of what it's trying to prove."
Learn these first
Sign up free: all 104 LSAT terms as flashcards, plus practice questions with full explanations →
Related LSAT terms
LSAT practice questions · LSAT flashcards · LSAT study guide