Circular Argument 

A Circular Argument  is a fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise to support that same conclusion. In other words, the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, creating a loop where no actual evidence or reasoning is provided. The argument essentially goes in circles, and it doesn’t prove anything because it just restates the conclusion in different words.

Example 1:

Argument: "God exists because the Bible says so, and we know the Bible is true because it’s the word of God."
In this example, the argument is circular because it uses the claim that God exists as proof of the Bible’s truth, but the Bible’s truth is also used as proof of God's existence. It doesn’t provide independent evidence to support either claim—just restates one as the basis for the other.

Example 2:

Argument: "The law should be obeyed because it is the law."
Here, the argument simply restates the conclusion ("the law should be obeyed") as the reason for believing it ("because it is the law"). There’s no further explanation or justification provided for why the law should be obeyed—it’s just assumed that it should because it is, which doesn't prove anything.

Example 3:

Argument: "You can trust me because I’m trustworthy."
In this case, the argument assumes the very point it is trying to prove (that the speaker is trustworthy) without providing any evidence to support it. It just restates the conclusion as the reason for the conclusion.

Why it’s a fallacy:

The Circular Argument fallacy is flawed because it doesn't provide any new information or evidence to support the conclusion. It assumes the truth of the conclusion from the outset, making it impossible to prove anything logically. To avoid this fallacy, arguments must provide independent reasons or evidence to support their claims, rather than simply assuming what they aim to prove.

Begging the Question  is a type of circular reasoning where the argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, rather than supporting it. In other words, the conclusion is essentially restated in different words in the premise, making the argument circular and unproven. Instead of providing evidence to support the claim, the argument assumes the claim is already true.  This is a type of circular reasoning.

Example 1:

Argument: "The Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible."
This is Begging the Question because the argument assumes the truth of the Bible's authority as proof of itself. The premise (the Bible says it is the word of God) already assumes the conclusion (that the Bible is the word of God), without offering any outside evidence.

Example 2:

Argument: "I’m trustworthy because I always tell the truth."
This argument is Begging the Question because it uses the claim of being trustworthy as the reason for being trustworthy. It doesn't provide any independent evidence or reasoning to support the claim of trustworthiness—it just restates it.

Example 3:

Argument: "The law must be obeyed because it’s illegal to break the law."
This is another Begging the Question fallacy because it asserts the law must be followed simply because it’s illegal to break it. The argument assumes the law’s legitimacy and does not provide any reasoning as to why the law itself should be obeyed.

Why it’s a fallacy:

Begging the Question is a fallacy because it doesn’t provide any actual support for the argument; it simply restates the conclusion in the premise. To avoid this fallacy, an argument needs to present valid evidence and reasoning that leads logically to the conclusion, instead of assuming the conclusion is already true.

More on Begging the Question