Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where an argument uses its own conclusion as proof. Instead of providing real evidence, the reasoning simply loops back on itself - assuming the very thing it is supposed to demonstrate.

At first glance, circular arguments can sound convincing. But once you look closer, you’ll notice that nothing new is actually being proven.

Key Characteristics of Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning usually:

  • Repeats the conclusion instead of supporting it
  • Lacks external evidence, data, or facts
  • Sounds logical, but goes in circles

Because no new information is introduced, the argument cannot move forward.

Real-World Examples

Example 1:
“The project is on track because the progress reports say so, and the reports are accurate because the project is on track.”

No independent data supports the claim—only repetition.

Example 2:
“We should keep using this tool because it’s the one we’ve always used for successful projects.”

Past usage is often treated as proof, without examining whether the tool remains effective.

Example 3:

“We need to scan, print, sign, and scan receipts again because that’s how it’s always been done.”

Process decisions are justified by habit, not reasoning.

Final Thoughts

Circular reasoning often hides behind tradition, assumptions, or internal validation. In projects and decision-making, it prevents improvement and blocks meaningful discussion.

If an argument can’t stand without repeating itself, it’s probably time to question it.