critical thinking is circular

Circular Reasoning (29 Examples + How to Avoid)

Have you ever felt you were going in circles trying to make a good argument? You're not the only one.

Circular reasoning is the formal logical fallacy mistake of using a claim to support itself. It happens when the person starts with what they want to end up with. This faulty circle goes round and round but gets nowhere.

You might not notice it, but circular thinking underlies many common beliefs. It sneaks unnoticed into political debates and advertising slogans. Noticing circular reasoning is the first step in spotting flaws in your thinking. It also helps reveal weaknesses in other people's arguments.

What is Circular Reasoning?

Circular reasoning pops up in everyday situations more often than you may think. You've likely used circular logic yourself without even realizing it. Or heard others argue in circles without picking up on the flaw.

Circular reasoning is called "begging the question", petitio principii, circular argument, paradoxical thinking, and circularity.

Circular arguments attempt to prove a point by arguing that two or more premises are true, thus the other must be also. In other words:

A is true because B is true.

While illogical, the two seem to justify each other's truthfulness. Perhaps it seems self-evident or a good point, but the question occurs when we look closely at the explanation.

For example, say your friend tells you their horoscope reading is always right because astrology is actual. When you ask how they know astrology is actual, they say because horoscope readings are so accurate.

Their reasoning goes in a loop with no evidence outside the circle offered to support the initial premise.

A premise is an assumption or idea that provides support or evidence for a conclusion. Premises are the foundation of logical arguments. They are statements offered as being true or factual. The conclusion then depends on the premises.

A circular reasoning fallacy happens when the premise and conclusion are the same. So the premise can't logically support the conclusion.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that leads to an invalid argument. Fallacies are flaws or mistakes in logic. Often, these flaws are used to appeal to an audience.

So, circular reasoning is the definition of one common logical fallacy.

As another example, perhaps you've seen a commercial claiming a product is the best because so many people buy it. But when pressed on how they know so many buy it, they respond because the product is the best.

The reasoning loops back on itself in a circular argument.

These are overly obvious examples, but circular arguments can be more subtle. The person stating them often doesn't notice the flaw in their logic. That's why consciously watching for circular reasoning is key.

Fallacies like circular reasoning are common when people argue about controversial topics. Debates about politics, religion, or social issues often involve circular logic.

Each side starts with their assumptions that support their beliefs. They use these assumptions as premises to make conclusions that align with their thoughts.

The Origins of Circular Arguments

The concept of circular reasoning hasn't popped up out of the blue in recent times. No, this method of thinking has been with us for centuries, weaving its way through discussions and debates.

So where did it all begin?

Well, the ancient Greeks, always the philosophers, were among the first to chat about the pitfalls of circular reasoning.

Thinkers like Aristotle pointed out the flaws in arguments that supported themselves. In his works, Aristotle specifically talked about how genuine proofs and logical reasoning should be structured.

Fast forward to the Medieval era. Philosophers, particularly in religious debates, would sometimes unknowingly fall into the trap of circular reasoning.

For instance, one might argue that a religious text is the absolute truth because it claims to be so. See the loop?

In more modern times, the study of logic and reasoning, especially in the academic and scientific worlds, has given us clearer tools and vocabulary to identify and counteract these arguments.

Universities and colleges began offering courses in critical thinking , writing, and logic . It's in these settings that students learn to navigate the maze of arguments and come out on the other side with clear, solid reasoning.

But history isn't just about dates and names. It's also about understanding patterns. Circular reasoning, despite being identified and criticized repeatedly over the years, continues to find its way into our conversations.

Examples of Circular Reasoning

• Lucky charms work because I use one and have good luck. How do you know it gives you good luck? Because lucky charms work.
• Astrology is scientifically proven because astrologers can accurately predict the future. How do they know the predictions are accurate? Because astrology is a natural science.
• The death penalty deters crime because areas with the death penalty have lower crime rates. How do you know the death penalty causes lower crime rates? Because the death penalty deters criminals.
• Aliens exist because eyewitnesses have seen UFOs. How do we know those were alien spacecraft? Because aliens have visited Earth.
• This diet is effective for weight loss because I lost weight on it. How do you know the diet caused the weight loss? Because the diet I used is proven to work.
• Our democracy works because we have free and fair elections. How do you know our elections are free and fair? Because we live in a functioning democracy.
• Bigfoot is real because there is photographic evidence. How do you know those photos are of an actual Bigfoot? Because Bigfoot creatures exist and were captured on film.
• I never get sick because I eat organic food. How do you know organic food keeps you healthy? Because I don't get sick and I only eat organic.
• The defendant is guilty because they failed a lie detector test about the crime. How do you know the test is accurate? Because it proves they lied about committing the crime.
• Tarot card readings are accurate because tarot cards can reveal hidden truths. How do you know tarot cards have that power? Because tarot readings give correct predictions.
• Torture produces reliable intel because tortured terror suspects provide helpful info. How do you know that intel is useful? Because torture is effective at extracting accurate information.
• My dog is very smart because he follows complex commands. How do you know following those commands indicates intelligence? Because my dog understands advanced training.
• This medical treatment works because patients improve when they use it. How do you know the patients improve from the treatment? Because this is an effective medical treatment.
• My memory supplements work because my memory improved after taking them. How do you know it was the supplements that caused better memory? Because those are effective memory-boosting supplements.
• Lie detector tests are flawed because they are not 100% accurate. How do you know they are not 100% accurate? Because there are flaws in lie detector tests.
• The moon landing was faked because inconsistencies in photos and videos show staging. How does one know those apparent inconsistencies weren't simply anomalies? Because the moon landing footage reveals the event was staged.
• The universe began with the Big Bang because astronomers detected residual radiation from the primordial explosion. How do you know that radiation is evidence of the Big Bang? Because the Big Bang theory correctly explains the origins of the universe.
• Rain dances work because people dance, and then it rains. How do you know the dance caused the rain? Because performing rain dances results in precipitation.

Famous Examples of Circular Logic

Circular reasoning isn't something new. It has popped up many times throughout history. Sometimes, it even made big headlines.

Let's look at some famous moments where circular reasoning was at play.

• Witch Trials : In the past, especially during the Salem witch trials, a common belief was that if a woman drowned, she wasn't a witch. But if she survived, she was a witch and was then executed. It was a no-win situation based on faulty reasoning.
• McCarthyism : In the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed to have a list of communists in the U.S. government. If someone denied being a communist, it was seen as proof that they were trying to hide their true identity, reinforcing McCarthy's claim.
• Advertising Claims : Ever seen a product that claims to be "the best" simply because everyone is buying it? This is circular reasoning. The product is the best because people buy it, and people buy it because it's the best.
• Ancient Texts : Sometimes, people believe a text or book is true because the book itself says it's true. Without external proof, this becomes a circular argument.
• Modern Debates : In many debates, you might hear someone say, "It's true because it's obvious." But just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it's true without solid reasons.

These are just a few times when circular reasoning entered big historical moments. It shows how important clear thinking is.

Why We Use Circular Reasoning

Now that you can spot circular reasoning, you may wonder - why do people rely on this logical mistake if it provides no actual proof? Our brains are prone to certain thinking traps that lead to circular logic.

First, confirmation bias makes us favor information that matches our existing beliefs. We start with assumptions like "My political party is always right." Then we interpret new events in a way that confirms our assumption, strengthening our conviction.

Cognitive dissonance , having two conflicting beliefs, also leads to circular reasoning. When faced with new information that challenges our views, we might gravitate towards arguments that confirm our beliefs, even if they're circular. Think of it as your brain's way of keeping the peace within itself.

The human tendency for motivated reasoning contributes too. We have an emotional attachment to our deeply held beliefs. So we often use flawed logic on purpose to reach the conclusions we want.

Sometimes, we don’t know enough about a topic to realize an argument is circling back on itself. In other words, we lack knowledge or are ignorant about the topic. It’s tempting to take the path of least resistance. In essence, learning is difficult, and just accepting things at face value without doing the work is easy.

Even the smartest people default to circular reasoning at times. It often happens unconsciously when our brains take mental shortcuts . The key is learning to watch for it in yourself and others.

Distinguishing from Valid Reasoning

Okay, now that we've delved into the why behind our susceptibility to circular arguments, it's time to sharpen your skills further.

It's one thing to spot circular reasoning but another to differentiate it from valid, robust reasoning. Sometimes, the line can be a bit blurry. Let's see what valid reasoning looks like.

• Presence of Genuine Evidence : In a sound argument, there’s a clear separation between the claim and the evidence supporting it. For instance, if someone claims, "Exercising regularly is beneficial," they might back it up with evidence like, "A recent study showed that people who exercise thrice a week have a reduced risk of heart diseases." Notice the distinction? The claim and evidence are separate entities.
• Chain of Reasoning : Strong arguments often have a chain of reasoning where one point leads to another, ultimately supporting the main claim.
• Testability and Falsifiability : Good reasoning can be tested and potentially proven wrong. Imagine someone claiming, "All swans are white." This can be tested by searching for a non-white swan.
• Absence of Repetition : As you've learned, circular reasoning often relies on restating the claim, even if in different words. Solid reasoning, however, presents fresh points or evidence without merely repeating the initial claim.
• Acknowledgment of Counterarguments : Strong arguments often recognize and address opposing viewpoints. It’s like a balanced diet, incorporating various nutrients. By addressing counterarguments, valid reasoning shows a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Similar Logical Fallacies

Circular reasoning has some closely related concepts in the world of logical fallacies. Distinguishing between these similar concepts can sometimes feel like identifying different shades of the same color. But with a careful eye, you can master the art of differentiation.

Let's untangle these similar concepts.

• Tautology : This statement is true in every possible interpretation due to its logical structure. For instance, "Either it will rain today, or it won't." While it may sound similar to circular reasoning, tautology doesn’t claim to provide evidence; it merely states an obvious truth.
• Affirming the Consequent : This involves a mix-up in a logical sequence. For instance, "If it's raining, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet, so it must be raining." While the wet ground could be due to other reasons, the conclusion jumps to a specific cause without justification.
• Ad Hominem : Instead of addressing an argument's merit, this fallacy targets the person making the argument. Think of it as playing the player instead of the ball. "You can't talk about nutrition because you're not a dietitian," sidesteps the argument.
• Red Herring : This fallacy introduces an irrelevant point to divert attention from the main issue. Imagine discussing pollution, and someone says, "But what about the economy? We need jobs!" While jobs are essential, they don't directly address the pollution concern.

How to Avoid a Logical Fallacy

Alright! You've learned a lot about circular reasoning . Now, let's ensure you can spot and avoid it in real life. Here's a straightforward guide to help you:

• Ask, "Why?" : When someone makes a claim, always ask, "Why?" It helps you understand their reasoning better.
• Look for Real Evidence : If someone says something is true, ask for proof or reasons.
• Know Your Own Beliefs : We all have our own beliefs and opinions. It's important to know what yours are so you can think clearly.
• Listen Carefully : Pay close attention to what others are saying. This way, you can catch if they're using circular reasoning.
• Learn More : The more you know about a topic, the better you can spot mistakes in what people say.
• Talk Openly with Others : Have open conversations. When everyone shares their thoughts, it's easier to spot mistakes.
• Think About Your Thinking : Every once in a while, think about how you make decisions or form opinions. Make sure you're not using circular reasoning yourself.

By following these steps, you'll be better at spotting and avoiding circular reasoning. Remember, it's important to think clearly and ask questions.

Consequences of Circular Reasoning

Understanding circular reasoning isn't just about spotting mistakes in what people say. It's also about understanding the effects it can have. Let's examine why circular reasoning is a big deal and what can happen if we don't catch it.

• Confused Decisions : When we base our decisions on circular reasoning, we might choose without genuine reasons.
• Misleading Information : If someone uses circular reasoning to prove a point, they might convince others of something untrue. It can spread false information .
• Wasted Time : Circular arguments go in circles without reaching a real answer.
• Lack of Trust : If people notice you often use circular reasoning, they might stop trusting what you say. Trust is important in friendships, work, and many other areas.
• Missed Opportunities : By not thinking clearly and relying on circular reasoning, we might miss out on better solutions or ideas.

In short, circular reasoning can lead to a lot of problems. It can confuse us, lead us down the wrong path, and even hurt our relationships. So, it's really important to understand it and avoid it. Always aim for clear thinking and strong reasons in everything you do.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning is when the reason given for something is just a repeat of the original statement. It's like saying, "I'm right because I'm right."

Why is circular reasoning a problem?

It's a problem because it gives no real evidence or reasons. It can lead to bad decisions and misunderstandings.

How can I spot circular reasoning?

Look for statements that repeat themselves without giving new information or reasons. Always ask, "Why?" to dig deeper.

Is circular reasoning always flawed?

Most of the time, yes. Good decisions are based on strong reasons. But sometimes, people might use it without realizing it.

How is circular reasoning different from a regular argument?

A regular argument gives reasons and evidence. Circular reasoning goes in a loop without adding anything new.

Can circular reasoning be persuasive?

It can be, especially if someone doesn't notice it. That's why it's important always to think critically and ask questions.

Are there famous examples of circular reasoning?

Yes, from the Salem witch trials to certain advertising claims, this example of circular reasoning has made headlines many times in history.

How can I avoid using circular reasoning?

Always think before you speak, ask for feedback, and be curious. Question your thoughts and the statements of others.

Is circular reasoning the same as repeating oneself?

Not always. Repeating can just be saying the same thing over. Circular reasoning is when the reason given is just a repeat of the statement.

Why should I care about circular reasoning?

Understanding and avoiding circular reasoning helps you make better decisions, have clearer conversations, and think more logically.

Circular reasoning might seem like a simple concept, but as you've seen, its effects can ripple out in significant ways. From history to everyday conversations, these circular logic loops can mislead and confuse. But armed with the knowledge you now possess, you're well-equipped to navigate these circles.

By questioning, reflecting, and always seeking clarity, you can avoid these logical pitfalls and help others do the same. After all, in the realm of reasoning, it's always better to forge a straight path than to go around in circles.

Related posts:

• The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
• Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)
• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
• Slippery Slope Fallacy (29 Examples + Definition)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Demystifying Circular Reasoning: What It Is and How to Avoid It

Published by tezu.vikash on september 8, 2023 september 8, 2023.

In the realm of critical thinking and logical argumentation, circular reasoning is often regarded as a logical fallacy that can undermine the credibility of an argument. Understanding what circular reasoning is and how to avoid it is essential for clear and effective communication. In this article, we will delve into the intricacies of circular reasoning, provide examples, and offer tips on how to steer clear of this common pitfall.

Table of Contents

Defining circular reasoning, its prevalence in everyday discourse, circular definitions, begging the question, vicious circles, religion and circular arguments, political circular reasoning, pseudo-intellectualism, credibility and persuasion, intellectual integrity, questioning assumptions, seeking external validation, exploring alternative explanations, circular reasoning in advertising, circular arguments in legal cases.

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Introduction to Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning, also known as circular logic or circular argumentation, is a fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is included in its premises. In other words, it’s a form of reasoning where the evidence or support for a claim simply restates the claim itself.

Circular reasoning can be found in everyday conversations, debates, and even in more formal contexts like academic writing and public speeches. It often goes unnoticed, making it essential to be able to identify and address it.

2. The Anatomy of Circular Reasoning

One common form of circular reasoning involves defining a term in a way that includes the term itself. For example, defining “honesty” as “the quality of being honest” doesn’t provide any meaningful insight.

Begging the question is another form of circular reasoning where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It’s a circular argument that offers no real evidence to support the claim.

Vicious circles occur when two or more claims or ideas rely on each other for validation, creating a self-reinforcing loop of reasoning.

3. Examples of Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning can be observed in religious arguments when a belief is used as evidence to support itself. For example, claiming that a religious text is true because it is the word of a deity is circular.

In politics, circular reasoning can manifest when politicians justify their actions by referring to their own authority or decisions. This type of reasoning lacks external validation.

Some individuals engage in circular reasoning to appear knowledgeable or intellectual, using complex language to mask the lack of substance in their arguments.

4. The Importance of Avoiding Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning erodes the credibility of an argument. To persuade others effectively, it’s crucial to present valid and well-supported claims.

Avoiding circular reasoning is a matter of intellectual integrity. It reflects a commitment to honest and rational discourse.

5. Detecting and Addressing Circular Reasoning

One way to detect circular reasoning is to question the assumptions underlying an argument. If an argument relies on an unproven assumption, it may be circular.

External validation from independent sources can help break the cycle of circular reasoning. Seeking evidence and opinions from diverse perspectives is essential.

Consider alternative explanations or viewpoints. If an argument only supports one conclusion and ignores other possibilities, it may be circular.

6. Real-World Applications

Advertisers sometimes use circular reasoning by claiming that their product is the best because it’s the most popular. This popularity is often based on the claim itself.

In legal cases, circular reasoning can occur when a defendant’s guilt is assumed based on the assumption that they committed the crime.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, circular reasoning is a common but detrimental fallacy that hinders effective communication and rational discourse. Recognizing it, addressing it, and promoting logical thinking are essential for intellectual growth and constructive dialogue.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: is circular reasoning always intentional, or can it be unintentional.

Circular reasoning can occur both intentionally and unintentionally. In some cases, individuals may not be aware that their argument is circular.

Q2: Can circular reasoning be persuasive?

Circular reasoning may appear persuasive to those who already hold the same belief. However, it is generally not persuasive to individuals who seek logical and evidence-based arguments.

Q3: Are there instances where circular reasoning is acceptable?

Circular reasoning is generally considered a logical fallacy. In rigorous academic, scientific, and critical thinking contexts, it is not acceptable.

Q4: Can circular reasoning be used as a rhetorical device?

Yes, circular reasoning can be employed as a rhetorical device to create an illusion of support for a claim. However, it is not a valid or sound argumentative strategy.

Q5: How can I improve my critical thinking skills to avoid circular reasoning?

Improving critical thinking involves questioning assumptions, seeking evidence, and considering alternative viewpoints. Engaging in debates and discussions can also enhance critical thinking skills.

Q6: What is circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning, also known as circular logic or circular argumentation, is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed or stated in one of the premises. In other words, it’s a form of faulty reasoning in which the argument’s premises and conclusion are essentially the same, making the argument logically invalid. Circular reasoning provides no real evidence or support for the conclusion because the conclusion is merely a restatement of one of the premises.

Q7: Explain circular reasoning with the example?

Circular reasoning can be deceptive because it may give the appearance of providing a valid argument when, in fact, it does not. It tends to create a self-reinforcing loop of reasoning that lacks meaningful evidence or logic.

Here’s a simple example of circular reasoning:

• “I know the book is true because it says so in the book.”

In this example, the conclusion is that the book is true, and one of the premises used to support this conclusion is that the book itself says it’s true. This argument doesn’t provide any external evidence or reasoning to demonstrate the book’s truth; it simply restates the claim within the book.

Circular reasoning can occur in various contexts, including debates, discussions, advertisements, and everyday conversations. It’s important to recognize and avoid circular reasoning to maintain logical and valid arguments.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Posts

A modern approach to verbal & non-verbal reasoning.

A Modern Approach to Verbal & Non-Verbal Reasoning: In today’s fast-paced world, the ability to reason effectively is a crucial skill. Whether you’re preparing for competitive exams, enhancing your problem-solving skills, or simply seeking to Read more…

Which passages are an example of inductive reasoning

ChatGP Introduction to Inductive Reasoning Inductive reasoning, a fundamental aspect of human cognition, allows us to draw conclusions based on specific observations and evidence. It’s the art of making educated guesses and forming hypotheses, which Read more…

Demystifying Quantitative Reasoning: A Guide to Enhancing Your Analytical Skills

In today’s data-driven world, the ability to understand and analyze numerical information is more valuable than ever. Quantitative reasoning, often abbreviated as QR, is a crucial skill that goes beyond just math. In this comprehensive Read more…

Breaking the Loop: What is Circular Thinking And Tips to Avoid

Have you at any point wound up trapped in a ceaseless pattern of considerations, thoughts, or choices that apparently lead you around and around focusing on no goal?

This confounding mental peculiarity is known as round naturally suspecting, a mental example that can possibly block progress, upset viable critical thinking, and defeat self-improvement.

In the following exploration, we will delve into the intricacies of circular thinking, elucidating its defining traits, and equipping you with practical strategies to liberate your mind from its grip, enabling you to forge meaningful advancements in your thought processes and decision-making capabilities.

What is Circular Thinking

Circular thinking is a cognitive pattern that often feels like an endless loop, where ideas, thoughts, and actions keep circling without any noticeable progress.

It’s comparable to the experience of exerting considerable effort while running on a hamster wheel, only to realize that despite all the energy spent, you’re essentially right back where you started.

In this exploration, we’ll delve more profoundly into the defining characteristics of circular thinking, shedding light on this intriguing facet of human cognition.

• Read also : What is Vertical Thinking
• Read also : What is Second Order Thinking

Characteristics of Circular Thinking

Repetition of ideas.

In circular thinking, a noticeable trait is the constant repetition of ideas, thoughts, or considerations.

It’s quite similar to the experience of listening to a broken record, where the same melody keeps playing repeatedly.

This repetitive cycle can manifest in various aspects of life, spanning personal dilemmas to professional challenges.

It feels as if your mind is ensnared in an unending loop, where the same concepts, arguments, or potential solutions resurface without ever reaching a satisfying resolution.

Lack of progression

One of the most exasperating aspects of circular thinking is the distinct impression of being stuck.

It’s akin to treading water in a vast ocean – expending energy but not moving closer to the shore.

Despite the mental activity and the energy invested in overthinking , there’s a glaring absence of forward movement.

Stagnation in problem-solving

Circular thinking often becomes a major roadblock in the realm of problem-solving.

Instead of embarking on journeys of exploration into new avenues, potential solutions, or different perspectives, you may discover yourself ensnared in a mental quagmire.

It’s somewhat akin to attempting to navigate through a labyrinth while only retracing your steps, never stumbling upon novel pathways or discoveries along the way.

Tips for Avoiding Circular Thinking

Breaking free from circular thinking requires awareness and proactive steps. Here are some practical tips to help you escape the cycle

Be clear about your assumptions

One crucial strategy to combat circular thinking is to identify and scrutinize the underlying assumptions that may be propelling this cognitive pattern.

Our assumptions, often taken for granted, can significantly influence our thought processes.

By questioning their validity and considering alternative viewpoints, we can challenge the very foundation of circular thinking.

This introspective examination encourages a more critical and open-minded approach, potentially breaking the cycle.

Recognizing patterns

Another key step in overcoming circular thinking is paying close attention to recurring thoughts and patterns in your thinking.

Think of it as deciphering a code – once you recognize the patterns, you gain the ability to consciously redirect your thoughts in a more productive direction .

This heightened awareness serves as a mental compass, steering you away from the circular loop towards a more progressive and solution-oriented mindset.

Seeking outside perspective

Engaging with others and seeking external perspectives is a powerful antidote to circular thinking.

Often, when we’re ensnared in our mental loops, we become myopic and lose sight of alternative viewpoints and solutions.

By inviting others into the conversation, whether friends, colleagues, or experts, we introduce fresh perspectives that can break the circular pattern.

These new insights often serve as catalysts for innovative thinking and problem-solving.

Embracing change

Resistance to change or a reluctance to step beyond one’s comfort zone is a pivotal factor driving circular thinking.

To combat this, it becomes paramount to nurture a mindset that wholeheartedly embraces change as an avenue for growth and enlightenment.

By acknowledging that change is an inherent and inescapable facet of life, we naturally become more receptive to fresh concepts and experiences.

This willingness to welcome change serves as a potent catalyst for breaking free from the circular loop and fostering both personal and intellectual development.

• Read also : What is Reflective Thinking
• Read also : What is Binary Thinking

Circular thinking can often feel like a mental roadblock, a never-ending loop that stalls progress and hampers effective problem-solving.

However, there’s hope.

By cultivating awareness and applying these practical tips, you can liberate your mind from this confining pattern and nurture a more dynamic and productive thinking process.

It’s important to remember that it’s perfectly acceptable to challenge your own thoughts and embrace fresh perspectives, as this can help you break free from the circular loop and propel your thinking in new and constructive directions.

Yes, circular thinking is a common cognitive pattern that many people experience at some point. It often arises when faced with complex or challenging decisions.

Yes, circular thinking can hinder decision-making in professional settings, leading to delays, missed opportunities, and frustration among team members.

While circular thinking can be unproductive, it can also serve as a signal that you’re grappling with a complex issue. It prompts you to dig deeper and explore different angles, which can lead to better understanding and solutions when managed effectively.

Productive rumination involves thoughtful reflection and problem-solving, whereas circular thinking tends to involve repetitive, unproductive loops of thought. Being aware of the lack of progress and repetition can help you distinguish between the two.

Planetary Discovery: Who Discovered the Planets in Our Solar System

Nature or Nurture: Are Personality Traits Genetic?

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Privacy policy.

To use social login you have to agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. %privacy_policy%

Add to Collection

Public collection title

Private collection title

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

Hey Friend! Before You Go…

Get the best viral stories straight into your inbox before everyone else!

Email address:

Don't worry, we don't spam

Everyday Psychology. Critical Thinking and Skepticism.

What is The Circular Reasoning Fallacy? | Critical Thinking Basics

Explanation. Examples. How to avoid the Circular Reasoning fallacy.

What the Circular Reasoning fallacy is:

The Circular Reasoning fallacy, also known as begging the question , occurs when an argument’s premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, creating a logical loop without providing meaningful evidence.

When it occurs:

This fallacy occurs when the argument’s reasoning relies on a conclusion that is also present in its premises.

Why it helps to identify and manage it:

Identifying Circular Reasoning is vital for maintaining the integrity of logical arguments, as it exposes a lack of substantive evidence or valid reasoning. Managing this fallacy promotes the development of more robust and well-supported arguments.

How to manage the Circular Reasoning fallacy:

To address Circular Reasoning, encourage individuals to provide external evidence or reasoning that supports their claims. Emphasize the need for arguments to stand on their own merits and avoid relying on conclusions that are merely restatements of the premises. Promoting logical rigor enhances the quality of discussions and reasoning.

Circular Reasoning: Examples

• “The Bible is the inspired word of God because it says so.”
• “I am a good person because I always do what is right.”
• “This policy is the best choice because it is the most superior option.”
• “The supernatural exists because there are things that cannot be explained naturally.”
• “Freedom of speech is essential because people should be allowed to express themselves freely.”
• “My beliefs are true because they are what I sincerely believe.”
• “The law is just because it upholds what is right.”

Share this:

Unraveling the Circular Reasoning Fallacy: A Logical Loop of Deception

• Cristiano Ronaldo

When you make purchases through our links we may earn a small commission.

Photo Credit: @stowkelly

🇺🇸 Support us on Patreon for only $1.99 a month 🇺🇸 🍻 Join us on Facebook @TheSmokingChair  🍻

In the realm of critical thinking and logical reasoning, fallacies serve as pitfalls that can undermine the integrity of an argument. One such fallacy that often goes unnoticed but can significantly weaken the foundation of reasoning is the Circular Reasoning Fallacy. This logical misstep occurs when the premise and conclusion of an argument are essentially the same, creating a circular, self-referential loop that fails to provide meaningful support for the intended conclusion.

Understanding Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning, also known as begging the question, occurs when the conclusion is assumed within the premise or vice versa, resulting in a self-perpetuating loop. The argument becomes a closed circle, offering no new information or evidence to support the assertion, ultimately leaving the audience in a state of logical ambiguity.

Content Continues Below

Consider the following example: “The Bible is the word of God because God wrote it, and we know this because the Bible says so.” In this case, the conclusion (the Bible is the word of God) is assumed within the premise (God wrote it), creating a circular argument with no external validation.

Common Instances

Circular reasoning can manifest in various forms, often masquerading as persuasive or convincing arguments. Some common instances include appeals to authority, where the authority’s credibility is based on the very claim they are supposed to support, or appeals to tradition, which assert the validity of a practice because it has been done for a long time.

Identifying the Fallacy

Detecting circular reasoning requires careful examination of the structure of the argument. If the premises and conclusion are essentially the same or rely on each other without providing external evidence, there is a strong likelihood that circular reasoning is at play.

Impact on Reasoning

The Circular Reasoning Fallacy undermines the fundamental purpose of logical argumentation – to provide valid and sound reasons supporting a conclusion. When this fallacy is present, the argument becomes a mere repetition of its own assumptions, failing to persuade those who scrutinize it critically.

Avoiding Circular Reasoning

To construct sound arguments, it is crucial to avoid circular reasoning. This involves ensuring that the premises offer new information or evidence that supports the conclusion independently. Cross-referencing with external sources, employing empirical evidence, and maintaining logical coherence are essential in constructing robust and persuasive reasoning.

The Last Word

In the quest for sound reasoning, recognizing and avoiding fallacies like circular reasoning is paramount. By understanding the subtle traps of circularity, individuals can engage in more rigorous and effective discourse, fostering a culture of critical thinking and logical analysis. As we unravel the circular reasoning fallacy, we pave the way for more robust and convincing arguments, enriching the quality of our intellectual pursuits.

• #TAGS: critical thinking skills , fallacies of logic and reasoning , logic and reasoning , make america think again

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU : Financing Universal Basic Income : A Comprehensive Approach

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU : Advancing Health Equity: 52 Benefits That Make The Case for Universal Basic Healthcare

You’ll get more articles like this – and our favorite promotional offers delivered straight to your inbox.

By submitting this form you agree to our terms and conditions . You can unsubscribe at any time.

11 Best Affiliate Programs for an Audience of Golf Lovers

Ultimate Guide to a Brazilian BBQ Feast

John Deere Classic First Round Recap – July 4, 2024

How Much Should I Invest In Home Furnishings and Decor for My New Home?

IRS Has Not Introduced Immigrant Housing Tax Incentive , Contrary to Posts

Trump Derangement Syndrome : Exploring Psychological Reflections

Trump Caused Chaos . Biden Built Bridges .

Ban Homelessness , Vote for UBI: A Path to Human Dignity and Social Progress

Understanding the Behavioral Science Behind Increased Employment with Universal Basic Income

GFYG: Watch Ann’s Sexy Transparent/See-Through Lingerie Try-On Haul and Get Busted by Delivery Man !

Video: Ninacola Transparent Fishnet Dresses TRY ON with Mirror View!

🔥 Transparent Sheer Tops Try-On Haul | Camila Elle 🔥

GFYG: MarieMur – Sexy Lingerie Try On Haul!

Maryland Governor Pardons Over 100,000 Cannabis Convictions

Blame Donald Trump—and MAGA Republicans—for the Crisis at the Southern Border

Biden’s Investment in American Infrastructure is Not Why The Price of Eggs is High

Transformative Investments: Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Fuels $17 Billion Boost for Ports and Waterways

Trump’s Hollow Claim about ‘ Inner Cities ’

70K Child Care Centers Expected to Close – Time for Universal Basic Income

The Appeal to Fear Fallacy : Understanding Its Influence and Pitfalls

Transformative Investment: Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Overhauls Roads and Bridges

Facing jail risk, Trump busted for U.S. adversaries routing millions to Trump Org during presidency

Trump’s ex-doctor demoted by Navy for inappropriate behavior in White House

Fallon: Trump Brags He Can Beat Biden in a Fight, Amazon’s Alexa Claims Election Fraud

Have a language expert improve your writing

Check your paper for plagiarism in 10 minutes, generate your apa citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Circular Reasoning Fallacy | Definition & Examples

Circular Reasoning Fallacy | Definition & Examples

Published on May 1, 2023 by Kassiani Nikolopoulou . Revised on August 21, 2023.

The circular reasoning fallacy is an argument that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is true. Instead of offering evidence, it simply repeats the conclusion, rendering the argument logically incoherent.

Child: “Why?”

People may commit circular reasoning fallacy unintentionally because they are convinced of their own assumptions and take them as given. Sometimes, circular reasoning is used deliberately to mask the speaker’s lack of understanding or evidence.

Table of contents

What is circular reasoning fallacy, what is a circular argument, how does circular reasoning fallacy work, circular reasoning fallacy examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about the circular reasoning fallacy.

A circular reasoning fallacy occurs when the evidence offered to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself.

Circular reasoning is a form of informal logical fallacy where the error lies in the content of the argument, rather than its form. More specifically, circular arguments are logically invalid because they offer no justification for their conclusion. Even so, circular arguments can be convincing because repeating the same thing makes it seem self-evident.

A circular argument (or circular reasoning) is an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything.

An argument consists of one or more statements (premise) and a claim (conclusion) . A premise is any reason or evidence that supports the argument’s conclusion. 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 proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion—the argument validates itself. However, self-validation is poor reasoning: an argument’s claim needs to be supported by actual evidence.

A circular reasoning fallacy consists of an argument that starts with a premise (A) and moves to a conclusion (B), where A is logically equivalent to B either explicitly or implicitly. In other words, both the premise and conclusion rely on the other’s truthfulness:

• A is true, because B is true
• B is true, because A is true

By the end of a circular reasoning fallacy, the argument will have come full circle, without actually having proven anything. It will use the fact that A can prove B and vice versa . This happens because the speaker already believes the claim is true.

In the previous example, the parent’s first statement (the conclusion in this case) and the justification they offer (the premise) are identical. The parent simply restated the claim as supporting evidence. However, no real explanation is offered as to why it is time to go to bed/it’s bedtime, such as “if you don’t get enough sleep, you’ll be tired at school tomorrow.”

Simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. The weakness of such arguments is particularly clear in some cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

Although one may find good arguments for the existence of God, people often commit circular reasoning due to their own deeply held belief, which they assume is self-evident.

Person 2: “How do you know?”

Person 1: “Because it says so in the Bible.” (B)

Person 2: “Why should I believe the Bible?”

Person 1: “Because it is the divine work of God.” (C)

In the above argument structure, notice that the premises rely 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.

Circular reasoning is usually (but not always) fallacious.

Economist: “A lot of people are leaving the state. Things are very poor in the building industry, for example, because there is no need for new housing.”

Journalist: “Why are people leaving the state?”

Economist: “Because the economy is depressed. People can’t find jobs with the economy being so slow at the moment.”

Here, the sequence of questions and answers has formed a full circle: the economy is in a bad state because people are leaving, and people are leaving because of the poor economy.

If you want to know more about fallacies , research bias , or AI tools , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• Sunk cost fallacy
• Straw man fallacy
• Slippery slope fallacy
• Logical fallacy
• Ecological fallacy
• Red herring fallacy
• Non sequitur fallacy

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Framing effect
• Cognitive bias
• Optimism bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Hostile attribution bias
• Affect heuristic

Circular reasoning fallacy uses circular reasoning to support an argument. More specifically, the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself. For example: “The President of the United States is a good leader (claim), because they are the leader of this country (supporting evidence)”.

Although many sources use circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question interchangeably, others point out that there is a subtle difference between the two:

• Begging the question fallacy occurs when you assume that an argument is true in order to justify a conclusion. If something begs the question, what you are actually asking is, “Is the premise of that argument actually true?” For example, the statement “Snakes make great pets. That’s why we should get a snake” begs the question “Are snakes really great pets?”
• Circular reasoning fallacy , on the other hand, occurs when the evidence used to support a claim is just a repetition of the claim itself.  For example, “People have free will because they can choose what to do.”

In other words, we could say begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, August 21). Circular Reasoning Fallacy | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/circular-reasoning-fallacy/

Rips, L. (2002). Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science , 26 (6), 767–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(02)00085-x

Is this article helpful?

Kassiani Nikolopoulou

Other students also liked, ad hominem fallacy | definition & examples, hasty generalization fallacy | definition & examples, slippery slope fallacy | definition & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Circular Reasoning

A valid deductive argument has a conclusion that follows logically from the premises. It does not infer or assume anything from the premises, but relies only on the information contained within them. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, often called begging the question, you assume as truth the premise you are supposed to be proving. In all valid deductions, the conclusion (what you are trying to prove) follows two premises. In an invalid argument using circular reasoning, the conclusion follows a single premise. In other words, the premise that is supposed to prove the truth of the conclusion is simply the conclusion restated with a slight variation. Circular reasoning looks like this: A is B, therefore A is B.

When a premise is left out, there is no argument. The person making the claim is simply telling to you believe that what he is telling you is true.

1. "I told you to clean your room!" "Why?" "Because I said so!"

2. "Why do you think the Yankees are the best team in baseball?" "Because they are."

How could these examples go from being invalid to valid, logical arguments? They need to add a second premise that supports, or gives reason for, the conclusion. Example 1 might add: "Your room is so messy that you can't find anything in it," or, "All of your laundry is on the floor, and it won't get washed until you clean it up and put it in the washer." Example 2 could add: "They have won the World Series 26 times in the last 39 appearances," or, "They are the only team to sweep the World Series ten times."

Continue reading here: Lesson 9 Persuasion Techniques

Was this article helpful?

Related Posts

• Making Decisions Under Stress
• Reasoning from generalisation
• Venn Diagram - Critical Thinking
• What Is a Judgment Call - Critical Thinking
• Avoid Making Assumptions - Critical Thinking
• Pretest - Critical Thinking

Readers' Questions

Is circular reasoning critical thinking?

9 Circular Reasoning Examples (or “Begging the Question”) in Everyday Life

There might be affiliate links on this page, which means we get a small commission of anything you buy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Please do your own research before making any online purchase.

If you’re job hunting, you’re certainly not alone. 

And if you are fresh out of college, you may be having a tough time competing in a job market with others who have extensive experience in your chosen field.

This is where a major frustration comes into trying to land a job. Often, companies will say they can’t hire you because you don’t have the experience that they’re looking for in a candidate. However, the only way you would get that experience would be by working at the company.

Essentially, the argument here is, “We can’t hire you because we have never hired you before.”

This is a real-life example of circular reasoning that resonates with many people right now–but, unfortunately, you probably don’t want to call out a potential employer for making a fallacious argument.

In this article, we are going to take a deeper look at what circular reasoning (or “begging the question”) is and then we will dive into 9 examples that you may come across in everyday life.

Table of Contents

What is Circular Reasoning?

Circular reasoning is a type of argument in which the conclusion comes back to the premise without providing any outside proof, meaning both sides of the argument are making the same point . By using its own conclusion as a premise, the statement doesn’t offer any type of proof–instead, it declares the conclusion in another form, consequently asking the listener to accept it as being true without any evidential claims.

It often comes in a form that looks like this:

Premise: Claim A is true because Claim B is true.

Conclusion: Therefore, Claim B is true because Claim A is true.

Fooling someone with circular reasoning would require correctly assuming that they already believe that your conclusion is true. To go back to the job hunting example, the employer is assuming that the job hunter will think, “That’s true, I can’t work here because I don’t have any experience working here…so I must not be qualified.” 

Now, we recognize that this logic doesn’t make sense because you can only gain experience by working there, and in order to work there you would need to be hired– but the speaker was able to circumvent any further questions.

So, who do you think would be the most likely to be convinced by this type of argument? It would be those who already believe the conclusion is true (… confirmation bias , anyone?).

But, if you don’t accept the claim, you won’t accept the reasoning behind it. 

People often use this type of faulty reasoning when talking about an issue that is controversial, as a speaker assumes that the audience already agrees with the argument, claiming that it’s common sense. This can happen in many contexts, including relationships, politics, religion, marketing, medical decisions, and policy-making.

Circular reasoning may sound complicated, but it’s simple to understand with some real-world examples, so let’s take a look. 

1. Religion

Circular reasoning is often brought up in religion because people’s beliefs are based on…beliefs. One common religious argument that falls into the category of circular reasoning is that the Bible is true, so you shouldn’t doubt it. This is used as a classic example of circular reasoning in many cases because regardless of whether or not the Bible is true, this statement is not a strong argument.

The person hearing the argument may be asking, “Well, how do we know God exists?” And the person making the claim responds by saying we know God exists because it says so in this book. The listener is then left to take the speaker’s word that the Bible is true and God exists because the speaker believes in the book (and therefore the listener should as well). 

2. Catch-22

If you read the book Catch-22 , you may be familiar with the circular reasoning that defines it. This novel portrays the absurdity of military life through the experiences of the US Army Air Force during World War II,  who struggle to maintain their sanity while trying to meet their service requirements in order to go home from combat. 

The circular reasoning argument in this classic story is that cognitively functional people have to fly in combat missions, even though they are dangerous. The idea of flying these combat missions is scaring people, so they claim to be mentally unstable so they can stay on the ground. 

But the truth is, you would have to be of an unsound mind to be unafraid of flying in combat missions, because being afraid when facing danger is a sign of a rational mind. So, if you’re afraid, it shows that you are actually cognitively functional and therefore have to fly these combat missions that are scaring you and driving you crazy.

Essentially, soldiers who are exhibiting a fear response from going on combat missions have to fly in the missions because their demonstration of being traumatized proves they’re mentally sound.   

3. Scam Emails

I’m sure you’ve gotten an email from someone overseas at some point, offering you a fortune…as long as you send some money to them first. 

Of course, the author thinks you may question the validity of the offer since it’s so generous, so at the very end, the author writes, “I, prince Mubadola of Nigeria, assure you this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this email and any further emails you receive from me.” 

As the reader, you now “know” that the email is legitimate because it says that it is in the email. By asserting the conclusion in another form, the author is asking the recipient of the email to accept it as the truth.

4. “Of course doing drugs is illegal, it’s against the law!”

The premise of this argument (that doing drugs is illegal) is the same as the reasoning (it’s against the law).

This argument is circular because it returns to the beginning: It’s against the law to do drugs because doing drugs is illegal, and, it's illegal to do drugs because it’s against the law. The listener needs some additional evidence to escape the circular reasoning, regardless of whether or not the claim is true.

5. Women’s Rights

“Women should have access to abortion services, so abortion should be legal and available.”

This is a similar argument to the circular reasoning argument about the legality of drugs. This statement causes the listener to ask, “How can you be sure?” There is no valid evidence aside from the assertion that claim A proves conclusion B.

6. Societal Norms

There are many societal norms that could be argued using circular reasoning. For example,  “Most people get married because getting married is the norm. It is the norm to get married because most people marry.” 

This argument could go in circles all day without offering any actual evidence as to why people get married or why it is a societal norm.

7. “Happiness is the principal value for all humans because all other values are inferior to it.”

As you can see, the “because” in this sentence just brings the reader back to the beginning. It doesn’t offer any new information or evidence that the statement is true. 

The speaker here is making an attempt to avoid taking on the burden of further proving the premise of their argument by basing it on the assumption (or hope) that the listener already believes the conclusion is true. So in this case, the speaker is inferring that the listener believes that there are no values that are more important than happiness. And, that certainly may not be the case . 

8. “Smoking causes cancer because the smoke from cigarettes is a carcinogen.”

This essentially says that smoking causes cancer because smoke is cancerous. This is an example of when the premise and conclusion are both indeed true , however, the relational structure of the two statements when used as an argument is considered to be circular reasoning.

If another factor were to be brought in, such as :

 “Smoking causes cancer because it releases over 5,000 chemicals into the body that damage one’s DNA and destroy cancer-protecting elements in cells.”

Then the circle would be broken.

9. “Minority’s rights are just as protected as the rights of the majority because the majority’s rule is not valued any more than the rights of minorities.” 

The circular structure of this argument attempts to block further dialogue and prevent the listener from responding by asking legitimate questions looking for further evidence of the claim. The premise of this argument is the same as–and therefore equally as questionable as–its conclusion.

This topic is more complex than the conclusion that the speaker is offering. A statement that would avoid circular reasoning would be: “Instances that involve this type of debate are addressed on a case-by-case basis to come to a conclusion that allows neither the majority rule nor minority rights to undergo irreparable harm. The majority rule and minority rights must both be preserved to maintain a fair and just constitutional democracy.”

Learn About Other Logical Fallacies

• 5 Appeal to Nature Fallacy Examples in Media and Life
• 6 Outcome Bias Examples That Can Negatively Impact Your Decisions
• 7 Self-Serving Bias Examples You See Throughout Life
• 7 Omission Bias Examples That Negatively Impact Your Life
• 6 Authority Bias Examples That Might Impact Your Decisions
• 5 Burden of Proof Fallacy Examples
• 5 Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Examples in Life
• 5 Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy Examples
• 7 False Cause Fallacy Examples
• 7 Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy Examples
• 7 Appeal to Common Sense Logical Fallacy Examples
• 5 Post Hoc Fallacy Examples (and How to Respond to This Argument)
• Gambler’s Fallacy: 5 Examples and How to Avoid It
• 5 Appeal to Anger Fallacy Examples Throughout Life
• 7 Halo Effect Bias Examples in Your Daily Life
• 7 Poisoning the Well Examples Throughout Your Life
• 7 Survivorship Bias Examples You See in the Real World
• 7 Dunning Kruger Effect Examples in Your Life
• 7 Either Or (“False Dilemma”) Fallacy Examples in Real Life
• 5 Cui Bono Fallacy Examples to Find Out “Who Will Benefit”
• 6 Anchoring Bias Examples That Impact Your Decisions
• 7 Virtue Signaling Examples in Everyday Life
• 7 Cherry Picking Fallacy Examples for When People Ignore Evidence
• 9 Appeal to Emotion Logical Fallacy Examples
• 9 Appeal to Pity Fallacy (“Ad Misericordiam”) Examples in Everyday Life
• 9 Loaded Question Fallacy Examples in Life and Media
• 9 Confirmation Bias Fallacy Examples In Everyday Life
• 9 Bandwagon Fallacy Examples to Prevent Poor Decisions
• 5 Red Herring Fallacy Examples to Fight Irrelevant Information
• 9 Middle Ground Fallacy Examples to Spot During an Argument
• 5 False Equivalence Examples to Know Before Your Next Argument
• 7 Hasty Generalization Fallacy Examples & How to Respond to Them
• 6 Straw Man Fallacy Examples & How You Can Respond
• 6 False Dichotomy Examples & How to Counter Them
• 7 Slippery Slope Fallacy Examples (And How to Counter Them)
• What is the Planning Fallacy?
• How to Overcome the “Sunk Cost Fallacy” Mindset

Final Thoughts on Circular Reasoning

The best way to prevent people from being able to make circular reasoning arguments is to ask for more evidence of their claim. Whether you’re on the receiving end of the argument or you’re making a claim that could potentially be regarded as circular reasoning, adding outside proof can put an end to this loop. Keeping an open mind based on outside evidence is critical when trying to prevent an argument from becoming circular. 

Keep these examples in mind when you think you may be in a conversation that is using circular reasoning in some way to prove a point, and consider asking for (or providing) more evidence for a claim.

Finally, if you want a simple process to counter the logical fallacies and cognitive biases you encounter in life, then follow this 7-step process to develop the critical thinking skills habit .

Connie Mathers is a professional editor and freelance writer. She holds a Bachelor's Degree in Marketing and a Master’s Degree in Social Work. When she is not writing, Connie is either spending time with her daughter and two dogs, running, or working at her full-time job as a social worker in Richmond, VA.

Jessie Ball duPont Library

Critical thinking skills, watch the fallacies.

• Need Research Help?
• Research Help

Although there are more than two dozen types and subtypes of logical fallacies, these are the most common forms that you may encounter in writing, argument, and daily life:

Example: Special education students should not be required to take standardized tests because such tests are meant for nonspecial education students.

Example: Two out of three patients who were given green tea before bedtime reported sleeping more soundly. Therefore, green tea may be used to treat insomnia.

• Sweeping generalizations  are related to the problem of hasty generalizations. In the former, though, the error consists in assuming that a particular conclusion drawn from a particular situation and context applies to all situations and contexts. For example, if I research a particular problem at a private performing arts high school in a rural community, I need to be careful not to assume that my findings will be generalizable to all high schools, including public high schools in an inner city setting.

Example: Professor Berger has published numerous articles in immunology. Therefore, she is an expert in complementary medicine.

Example: Drop-out rates increased the year after NCLB was passed. Therefore, NCLB is causing kids to drop out.

Example: Japanese carmakers must implement green production practices, or Japan‘s carbon footprint will hit crisis proportions by 2025.

In addition to claims of policy, false dilemma seems to be common in claims of value. For example, claims about abortion‘s morality (or immorality) presuppose an either-or about when "life" begins. Our earlier example about sustainability (―Unsustainable business practices are unethical.‖) similarly presupposes an either/or: business practices are either ethical or they are not, it claims, whereas a moral continuum is likelier to exist.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

Hasty Generalization

Sweeping Generalization

Non Sequitur

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

False Dilemma

• << Previous: Abduction
• Next: Need Research Help? >>
• Last Updated: Aug 15, 2024 6:00 PM
• URL: https://library.sewanee.edu/critical_thinking

Research Tools

• Find Articles
• Find Research Guides
• Find Databases
• Ask a Librarian
• Learn Research Skills
• How-To Videos
• Borrow from Another Library (Sewanee ILL)
• Find Audio and Video
• Find Reserves
• Access Electronic Resources

Services for...

• College Students
• The School of Theology
• The School of Letters
• Community Members

Spaces & Places

• Center for Leadership
• Center for Speaking and Listening
• Center for Teaching
• Floor Maps & Locations
• Ralston Listening Library
• Study Spaces
• Tech Help Desk
• Writing Center

About the Library

• Where is the Library?
• Library Collections
• New Items & Themed Collections
• Library Policies
• Library Staff
• Friends of the Library

Jessie Ball duPont Library, University of the South

178 Georgia Avenue, Sewanee, TN 37383

931.598.1664

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - Logical Fallacies

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, logical fallacies, critical thinking and decision-making logical fallacies.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: Logical Fallacies

Lesson 7: logical fallacies.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/how-critical-thinking-can-change-the-game/content/

Logical fallacies

If you think about it, vegetables are bad for you. I mean, after all, the dinosaurs ate plants, and look at what happened to them...

Let's pause for a moment: That argument was pretty ridiculous. And that's because it contained a logical fallacy .

A logical fallacy is any kind of error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid . They can involve distorting or manipulating facts, drawing false conclusions, or distracting you from the issue at hand. In theory, it seems like they'd be pretty easy to spot, but this isn't always the case.

Watch the video below to learn more about logical fallacies.

Sometimes logical fallacies are intentionally used to try and win a debate. In these cases, they're often presented by the speaker with a certain level of confidence . And in doing so, they're more persuasive : If they sound like they know what they're talking about, we're more likely to believe them, even if their stance doesn't make complete logical sense.

False cause

One common logical fallacy is the false cause . This is when someone incorrectly identifies the cause of something. In my argument above, I stated that dinosaurs became extinct because they ate vegetables. While these two things did happen, a diet of vegetables was not the cause of their extinction.

Maybe you've heard false cause more commonly represented by the phrase "correlation does not equal causation ", meaning that just because two things occurred around the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other.

A straw man is when someone takes an argument and misrepresents it so that it's easier to attack . For example, let's say Callie is advocating that sporks should be the new standard for silverware because they're more efficient. Madeline responds that she's shocked Callie would want to outlaw spoons and forks, and put millions out of work at the fork and spoon factories.

A straw man is frequently used in politics in an effort to discredit another politician's views on a particular issue.

Begging the question

Begging the question is a type of circular argument where someone includes the conclusion as a part of their reasoning. For example, George says, “Ghosts exist because I saw a ghost in my closet!"

George concluded that “ghosts exist”. His premise also assumed that ghosts exist. Rather than assuming that ghosts exist from the outset, George should have used evidence and reasoning to try and prove that they exist.

Since George assumed that ghosts exist, he was less likely to see other explanations for what he saw. Maybe the ghost was nothing more than a mop!

False dilemma

The false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy where a situation is presented as being an either/or option when, in reality, there are more possible options available than just the chosen two. Here's an example: Rebecca rings the doorbell but Ethan doesn't answer. She then thinks, "Oh, Ethan must not be home."

Rebecca posits that either Ethan answers the door or he isn't home. In reality, he could be sleeping, doing some work in the backyard, or taking a shower.

Most logical fallacies can be spotted by thinking critically . Make sure to ask questions: Is logic at work here or is it simply rhetoric? Does their "proof" actually lead to the conclusion they're proposing? By applying critical thinking, you'll be able to detect logical fallacies in the world around you and prevent yourself from using them as well.

The Leading Source of Insights On Business Model Strategy & Tech Business Models

Circular Reasoning Fallacy 

The circular reasoning fallacy, also known as circular logic or petitio principii, is a common flaw in reasoning where the argument’s conclusion is already contained within its premises, rendering the argument invalid. It’s a subtle and deceptive form of faulty logic that can easily mislead listeners or readers.

Table of Contents

Defining the Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Circular reasoning occurs when an argument is structured in a way that assumes the truth of the conclusion within its premises, making it logically unsound. Instead of offering independent evidence or support for the conclusion, circular reasoning merely restates or rephrases the conclusion in a different form. It creates a circular or self-referential chain of reasoning that leads nowhere.

The structure of circular reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• Premise 1 (P1): Contains the conclusion or an equivalent statement.
• Conclusion (C): Essentially restates P1.
• Therefore, C is true.

In this fallacy, the argument fails to provide any new information or logical progression from the premises to the conclusion. It assumes what it intends to prove, making it logically invalid.

Examples of the Circular Reasoning Fallacy

To better understand the circular reasoning fallacy, let’s examine some examples:

Example 1: “The book is reliable because it is trustworthy.”

In this example, the conclusion (“The book is reliable”) is essentially a rephrasing of the premise (“it is trustworthy”). The argument doesn’t offer any external evidence or criteria for why the book should be considered trustworthy, making it circular.

Example 2: “I know the answer is correct because I’m certain it’s right.”

This argument relies on the premise of personal certainty to support the conclusion that the answer is correct. However, it doesn’t provide any objective evidence or reasoning to demonstrate why the answer is right, resulting in circular reasoning.

Example 3: “Aliens must exist because there are countless reports of UFO sightings.”

In this case, the conclusion (“Aliens must exist”) is based on the premise of “countless reports of UFO sightings.” However, the argument doesn’t establish the credibility or validity of those reports, making it circular.

Identifying the Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Recognizing the circular reasoning fallacy can be challenging because it often involves a subtle and seemingly coherent presentation. Here are some key indicators to help identify circular reasoning:

• Repetition of Ideas: Look for arguments that repeat the same ideas or concepts between the premises and the conclusion. If the conclusion is a restatement of a premise, it may be circular.
• Assumption of Conclusion: Check if the premises assume the truth of the conclusion or rely on it to make sense. If the argument appears to take the conclusion for granted, it’s likely circular.
• Lack of Independent Support: Circular reasoning typically lacks independent evidence or logical steps to connect the premises to the conclusion. If the argument fails to provide new information or reasoning, it may be circular.
• Use of Circular Language: Pay attention to language that suggests circular reasoning, such as phrases like “because it’s true” or “since it’s correct.” These phrases often indicate circularity.
• Question the Validity: Ask whether the premises actually support the conclusion or if they merely restate it. If the premises don’t offer distinct reasons or evidence for the conclusion, circular reasoning is likely present.

Why Circular Reasoning Is a Fallacy

Circular reasoning is considered a fallacy for several reasons:

• Logical Invalidity: Circular arguments lack logical validity because they don’t establish the truth of the conclusion. They create a circular structure where the conclusion is already assumed in the premises.
• No New Information: Circular reasoning fails to provide any new information, evidence, or reasoning that would contribute to the argument’s validity. It’s essentially a self-referential loop that adds no substance to the discussion.
• Deceptive Appearance: Circular reasoning can be deceptive because it may appear valid on the surface. People may mistake it for a convincing argument, leading to false beliefs or conclusions.
• Circular Chains: Circular reasoning can create chains of arguments that rely on each other’s circularity, making it difficult to break the loop and arrive at a valid conclusion.

Common Misconceptions

To avoid misconceptions, it’s important to clarify a few common points related to circular reasoning:

• Circular Definitions: Circular reasoning should not be confused with circular definitions. In some cases, circular definitions are necessary in the process of defining terms but are not the same as circular reasoning in argumentation.
• Complex Arguments: Circular reasoning can be found in both simple and complex arguments. A lengthy or complex argument can still be circular if it ultimately relies on a premise that assumes the conclusion.

Avoiding the Circular Reasoning Fallacy

To avoid using circular reasoning in your arguments and to recognize it in others’ reasoning, consider the following tips:

• Challenge Assumptions: Be aware of any assumptions you are making in your argument. Avoid premises that assume the conclusion.
• Seek External Evidence: Ensure that your premises provide external evidence or reasoning to support the conclusion. Strive for independent support.
• Use Critical Thinking: Encourage critical thinking and skepticism when evaluating arguments. Question whether the premises truly support the conclusion or if circular reasoning is at play.
• Seek Feedback: Share your arguments with others and seek feedback. Different perspectives can help identify circular reasoning.
• Improve Argument Structure: Refine the structure of your arguments to ensure logical validity. Avoid circular chains of reasoning.

The circular reasoning fallacy is a common and deceptive flaw in reasoning where the conclusion is already embedded within the premises, making the argument logically invalid. Recognizing and avoiding circular reasoning is essential for sound argumentation and critical thinking . By identifying circularity in arguments, we can engage in more productive and rational discussions, leading to better-informed conclusions and beliefs.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

Critical Thinking

Second-Order Thinking

Lateral Thinking

Bounded Rationality

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Occam’s Razor

Lindy Effect

Antifragility

Systems Thinking

Vertical Thinking

Maslow’s Hammer

Peter Principle

Straw Man Fallacy

Streisand Effect

Recognition Heuristic

Representativeness Heuristic

Take-The-Best Heuristic

Bundling Bias

Barnum Effect

First-Principles Thinking

Ladder Of Inference

Goodhart’s Law

Six Thinking Hats Model

Mandela Effect

Crowding-Out Effect

Bandwagon Effect

Moore’s Law

Disruptive Innovation

Value Migration

Bye-Now Effect

Stereotyping

Murphy’s Law

Law of Unintended Consequences

Fundamental Attribution Error

Outcome Bias

Hindsight Bias

Read Next:  Biases ,  Bounded Rationality ,  Mandela Effect ,  Dunning-Kruger Effect ,  Lindy Effect ,  Crowding Out Effect ,  Bandwagon Effect .

Main Guides:

• Business Models
• Business Strategy
• Marketing Strategy
• Business Model Innovation
• Platform Business Models
• Network Effects In A Nutshell
• Digital Business Models

More Resources

About The Author

Gennaro Cuofano

Discover more from fourweekmba.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

gawrav/Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Critical thinking is the process of independently analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information as a guide to behavior and beliefs.

The American Philosophical Association has defined critical thinking as "the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. The process gives reasoned consideration to evidence , contexts , conceptualizations, methods, and criteria" (1990). Critical thinking is sometimes broadly defined as "thinking about thinking."

Critical thinking skills include the ability to interpret, verify, and reason, all of which involve applying the principles of logic . The process of using critical thinking to guide writing is called critical writing .

Observations

• " Critical Thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, Critical Thinking is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, Critical Thinking is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit." (American Philosophical Association, "Consensus Statement Regarding Critical Thinking," 1990)
• Thought and Language "In order to understand reasoning [...], it is necessary to pay careful attention to the relationship between thought and language . The relationship seems to be straightforward: thought is expressed in and through language. But this claim, while true, is an oversimplification. People often fail to say what they mean. Everyone has had the experience of having their \ misunderstood by others. And we all use words not merely to express our thoughts but also to shape them. Developing our critical thinking skills, therefore, requires an understanding of the ways in which words can (and often fail to) express our thoughts." (William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills , 4th ed. Broadview, 2004)
• Dispositions That Foster or Impede Critical thinking "Dispositions that foster critical thinking include [a] facility in perceiving irony , ambiguity , and multiplicity of meanings or points of view; the development of open-mindedness, autonomous thought, and reciprocity (Piaget's term for the ability to empathize with other individuals, social groups, nationalities, ideologies, etc.). Dispositions that act as impediments to critical thinking include defense mechanisms (such as absolutism or primary certitude, denial, projection), culturally conditioned assumptions, authoritarianism, egocentrism, and ethnocentrism, rationalization, compartmentalization, stereotyping and prejudice." (Donald Lazere, "Invention, Critical Thinking, and the Analysis of Political Rhetoric." Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention , ed. by Janet M. Atwill and Janice M. Lauer. University of Tennessee Press, 2002)
• Critical Thinking and Composing - "[T]he most intensive and demanding tool for eliciting sustained critical thought is a well-designed writing assignment on a subject matter problem. The underlying premise is that writing is closely linked with thinking and that in presenting students with significant problems to write about—and in creating an environment that demands their best writing—we can promote their general cognitive and intellectual growth. When we make students struggle with their writing, we are making them struggle with thought itself. Emphasizing writing and critical thinking , therefore, generally increases the academic rigor of a course. Often the struggle of writing, linked as it is to the struggle of thinking and to the growth of a person's intellectual powers, awakens students to the real nature of learning." (John C. Bean,  Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom , 2nd ed. Wiley, 2011) - "Finding a fresh approach to a writing assignment means that you must see the subject without the blinders of preconception. When people expect to see a thing in a certain way, it usually appears that way, whether or not that is its true image. Similarly, thinking based on prefabricated ideas produces writing that says nothing new, that offers nothing important to the reader. As a writer, you have a responsibility to go beyond the expected views and present your subject so that the reader sees it with fresh eyes. . . . [C]ritical thinking is a fairly systematic method of defining a problem and synthesizing knowledge about it, thereby creating the perspective you need to develop new ideas. . . . " Classical rhetoricians used a series of three questions to help focus an argument . Today these questions can still help writers understand the topic about which they are writing. An sit? (Is the problem a fact?); Quid sit (What is the definition of the problem?); and Quale sit? (What kind of problem is it?). By asking these questions, writers see their subject from many new angles before they begin to narrow the focus to one particular aspect." (Kristin R. Woolever, About Writing: A Rhetoric for Advanced Writers . Wadsworth, 1991)

Logical Fallacies

Ad Misericordiam

Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Force

Appeal to Humor

Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to the People

Begging the Question

Circular Argument

Complex Question

Contradictory Premises

Dicto Simpliciter , Equivocation

False Analogy

False Dilemma

Gambler's Fallacy

Hasty Generalization

Name-Calling

Non Sequitur

Poisoning the Well

Red Herring

Slippery Slope

Stacking the Deck

• Stipulative Definitions in English
• What Is a Synopsis and How Do You Write One?
• What is Disjunction in Grammar?
• Definition and Examples of Explication (Analysis)
• online reading
• What Does It Mean to Make a Claim During an Argument?
• Critical Analysis in Composition
• What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric?
• The Meaning of Innuendo
• Learn How to Use Extended Definitions in Essays and Speeches
• Rhetorical Analysis Definition and Examples
• What Is a Hasty Generalization?
• Ware, Wear, and Where: How to Choose the Right Word
• Definition and Examples of Paragraphing in Essays
• Historic vs. Historical: How to Choose the Right Word
• Persuasion and Rhetorical Definition

Representations

Circular Thinking

How to think a figure; or, hegel’s circles, by andrew cole .

The essay begins:

No philosopher better epitomizes circular reasoning, nor more fittingly embodies the logical fallacy of circulus in probando , than G. W. F. Hegel, because he loves talking about circles and his points often go in circles. This essay isn’t about Hegel’s endearing oral delivery, about which plenty has been said since the man himself was alive. Rather, this is an attempt to think philosophically about circles and rethink so-called Hegelian circularity.

Why we would even bother thinking about circles is on account of their “eternal” symbolism within philosophy and theory—the fact that the circle always stands for something , ever the symbol of this or that thing you don’t really like. Invariably, that something is Hegel, on the grounds that he typifies the circularity of thought. For example, Ludwig Feuerbach writes: “The circle is the symbol and the coat of arms of speculative philosophy, of the thought that rests on itself. Hegel’s philosophy, too, as is well known, is a circle of circles.” This is indeed one of those long-standing clichés about Hegel. So it’s no surprise that Louis Althusser—whose anti-Hegelianism can be forgiven in the knowledge that he’s really not a deep reader of Hegel—draws a circle around himself in order to step out of it, striding from ideology to science:

The whole history of the “theory of knowledge” in Western philosophy from the famous “Cartesian circle” to the circle of the Hegelian or Husserlian teleology of Reason, shows us that this “problem of knowledge” is a closed space, i.e., a vicious circle (the vicious circle of the mirror relation of ideological recognition). 

That’s a lot of circles, a lot of symbols. What do they mean? What do they really “ show ”?

These symbolic circles mean too much and not enough: call something a circle and the point about it is somehow immediately clear, but wait, how is something that’s not actually a circle like a circle or identical to a circle? Such symbolic circles mean what you want them to mean, which is exactly why all symbols are hopelessly bound up with the proverbial problem of meaning—tokens of the human need to line things up, to know where things go, ever since we first took soil for filth and polluted it accordingly. All the more reason, then, to think dialectically about our problem in an essay that both defends and extends Hegel’s thinking on this question of circularity and figures.

Our problem is this: Hegel rates figures below concepts but he needn’t always do so. In his mind, figures are just a bunch of numbers and lines annoyingly uncommitted to either Thought or Being. He also dislikes figures because they aren’t language, or are a lesser language. Hegel has his reasons for these positions. But those reasons may not be good enough, judging by the way he seems to equivocate about figures. Sometimes figures are so perfect as to figurate the very significance of his philosophy (and that’s no small feat!). And sometimes they are pretenders to proper conceptuality, conceptual thinking by other means. Hegel is all over the place on this question, as we’ll soon see. But if one applies even a modicum of mathematical wit to the figures Hegel does offer us—and most of them are circles, with triangles as a close runner-up—then we discover some rather interesting spaces in which dialectics might wander.

Here I propose that figuration (in my renewed Hegelian sense) is what Walter Benjamin tried to describe a century later as “dialectical images”—only Hegel’s figures are already in motion, are already an action, and already an “image of thought” that’s not static but dynamic. Figures are figures of thought because they move, just as thinking and the dialectic itself must move, according to Hegel. Figures both initiate and image the movement of thought. Figures are for thinking, whereas symbols are for reading and interpretation. Figures are dialectical. As such, they supply a way of practicing Hegel’s abiding ambition, as laid out in the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit , “to bring fixed thoughts into a fluid state [festen Gedanken in Flüssigkeit zubringen],” so that we can apprehend “dialectical form [dialektische Form],” which is the representation of philosophical, critical thinking: in other words, Darstellung . Just what this thought process involves, the circle may help us grasp … and think. Continue reading …

In this essay Andrew Cole suggests that Hegel’s philosophy of the concept is also a philosophy of the figure, a demonstration of conceptuality by other means. Neither images nor symbols, Hegel’s figures—primarily, circles—initiate and image the movement of thought.

• [email protected]
• Login / Register

Why Critical Thinking Is Important: Skills and Benefits Explained

Article 07 Sep 2024 113 0

Critical thinking is one of the most essential cognitive skills, vital for navigating today’s complex world. Whether you are a student, educator, professional, or lifelong learner, developing critical thinking abilities can dramatically improve your problem-solving skills, decision-making processes, and intellectual independence.

What is Critical Thinking?

At its core, critical thinking refers to the ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connections between ideas. It involves analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to form judgments. Rather than accepting information at face value, critical thinkers delve deeper, questioning assumptions and assessing the evidence before drawing conclusions.

Components of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a multifaceted skill, which includes:

• Analysis : Breaking down complex information into smaller, more manageable parts.
• Evaluation : Judging the credibility of sources and the strength of arguments.
• Logical reasoning : Making decisions based on coherent and well-structured thought processes.
• Intellectual independence : Forming opinions based on careful examination rather than external influences.

By understanding these components, you can build a strong foundation for developing critical thinking skills , applicable to all aspects of life.

Importance of Critical Thinking in Daily Life

Why is critical thinking important? In today’s information-driven world, where we are constantly bombarded with data, opinions, and perspectives, being able to distinguish facts from fiction is essential. Critical thinking plays a key role in decision-making , problem-solving , and understanding complex issues . Let’s explore its significance in various areas:

1. Decision-Making

Effective decision-making requires the ability to weigh options, consider consequences, and anticipate outcomes. Critical thinking enables individuals to make informed decisions based on facts and reason, rather than emotions or bias. For example, when choosing a career path, a critical thinker will evaluate job market trends, personal interests, and long-term goals to make a well-informed decision.

2. Problem-Solving

In both personal and professional environments, problem-solving is an everyday necessity. Critical thinking enhances your ability to tackle challenges by breaking problems into manageable parts, analyzing potential solutions, and selecting the most effective approach. When faced with a complex issue at work, for example, a critical thinker will systematically evaluate possible solutions rather than jumping to conclusions.

3. Understanding Complex Issues

Whether in academics, work, or social interactions, understanding multifaceted issues requires higher-order thinking . Critical thinking allows you to approach these issues objectively, avoiding oversimplifications or emotional reactions. This skill is particularly valuable in today’s polarized world, where complex social, political, and environmental issues require careful thought and nuanced understanding.

Benefits of Developing Critical Thinking Skills

1. improved problem-solving abilities.

One of the most significant advantages of honing critical thinking is the improvement in problem-solving abilities. By learning to break down issues and consider various angles, you become adept at finding solutions that others might overlook. This skill is particularly valuable in fields like business, technology, and education, where innovation and creativity are prized.

2. Better Decision-Making

Good decisions stem from the ability to evaluate situations clearly and rationally. Critical thinking ensures that you are not swayed by emotional or impulsive reactions but instead base your decisions on sound reasoning. This leads to more consistent, reliable outcomes in both personal and professional settings.

3. Enhanced Communication Skills

Effective communication is built on clear thinking. By developing critical thinking skills , you improve your ability to express ideas clearly and persuasively. Whether in writing or speech, critical thinkers can present their ideas logically and support them with solid evidence, making their arguments more compelling.

4. Increased Intellectual Independence

Critical thinkers develop the habit of questioning information and seeking their own answers. This fosters intellectual independence , enabling individuals to form their own opinions and perspectives based on careful analysis rather than relying on others’ viewpoints. This independence is crucial in a world where misinformation is rampant.

5. Boosted Creativity and Innovation

Critical thinking is not only about logic; it also encourages creativity. By questioning assumptions and exploring new possibilities, critical thinkers often develop innovative solutions and ideas. This is particularly beneficial in fields that require out-of-the-box thinking, such as technology, entrepreneurship, and the arts.

How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills

Developing critical thinking skills is a lifelong process, but with intentional practice, anyone can improve. Here are actionable steps you can take:

1. Question Assumptions

The first step in critical thinking is to challenge your assumptions. Ask yourself: Why do I believe this? What evidence supports this claim? By questioning assumptions, you open your mind to new perspectives and solutions.

2. Analyze Information Critically

When presented with information, whether in the form of news, reports, or advice, practice analyzing it critically. What is the source of the information? Is it reliable? Are there biases that could affect the interpretation of the data? Critical thinking requires that you not only take information at face value but also dig deeper to understand its context.

3. Seek Out Diverse Perspectives

Exposure to different viewpoints strengthens your ability to think critically. By engaging with a wide range of opinions and ideas, you can challenge your preconceptions and develop a more balanced view of complex issues.

4. Reflect on Your Thinking Process

Reflective thinking is an integral part of critical thinking . After making decisions or solving problems, take time to evaluate your thought process. What worked well? Where could you improve? This self-reflection helps refine your thinking skills over time.

5. Practice Problem-Solving in Real-Life Scenarios

A great way to develop critical thinking is by applying it to real-life situations. Take on complex tasks at work, analyze current events, or even engage in strategy games that require planning and decision-making. By practicing problem-solving regularly, you will sharpen your critical thinking abilities.

Teaching Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking is not an innate ability; it must be nurtured and developed, particularly in educational settings. Here’s how educators can teach these essential skills:

1. Encourage Open-Ended Questions

In the classroom, asking open-ended questions encourages students to think critically rather than simply regurgitate information. Questions like “Why do you think this is true?” or “How would you solve this problem?” prompt students to analyze information and consider alternative solutions.

2. Promote Active Learning

Engaging students in active learning exercises, such as debates, group discussions, or problem-based learning, helps develop their critical thinking . These activities require students to articulate their thoughts, evaluate others’ perspectives, and revise their ideas based on evidence.

3. Teach Metacognitive Skills

Metacognition, or thinking about one’s thinking, is crucial for critical thinking . Teachers can encourage students to reflect on their thought processes by asking them to explain how they arrived at their conclusions. This practice helps students become more aware of their thinking patterns and biases.

Critical thinking is a powerful skill that enhances decision-making, problem-solving, and intellectual independence. It is essential in today’s fast-paced, information-rich world, where the ability to analyze information and make informed decisions is critical. By developing critical thinking skills , you can navigate complex issues with confidence, communicate more effectively, and innovate in both personal and professional environments.

To enhance your critical thinking , practice questioning assumptions, analyzing information critically, and seeking out diverse perspectives. Whether in education, work, or daily life, these skills will equip you to face challenges with clarity and logic, leading to better decisions and greater personal growth.

• Latest Articles

AI and the Future of Humans: Impact, Ethics, and Collaboration

Why ai is the future: innovations driving global change, how information technology is shaping the future of education, the impact of ai on employment: positive and negative effects on jobs, negative impact of ai on employment: automation and job loss, top 10 benefits of infographics in education for enhanced learning, positive impact of ai on employment: opportunities & benefits, blended learning: maximize impact with hybrid education models, accessibility in education: every student's voice matters, ai’s influence on job market trends | future of employment, improve your writing skills: a beginner's guide, shifts in pop culture & their societal implications, top study tips for exam success: effective strategies for academic achievement, 9 practical tips to start reading more every day, top study strategies for student success, personalized learning: tailored education for every student, how to study smarter, not harder: tips for success, 10 important roles of technology in education, apply online.

Find Detailed information on:

• Top Colleges & Universities
• Popular Courses
• Exam Preparation
• Admissions & Eligibility
• College Rankings

Sign Up or Login

Not a Member Yet! Join Us it's Free.

Already have account Please Login

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.