Everyone who is a gourmet cook enjoys a wide variety of foods and spices. Since no one who enjoys a wide variety of f...

Brett-Lindsay July 7, 2020

Circular reasoning in Answer Choice D

Answer choice D reads: Every postimpressionist painting from the Huang Collection will be auctioned off next week. No pop art paintings from the Huang Collection will be auctioned off next week. Hence none of the pop art paintings to be auctioned off next week will be from the Huang Collection. I diagrammed it as follows: PImp(H) --> ANW not ANW --> not PImp(H) Pop(H) --> not ANW ANW --> not Pop(H) PImp(H) --> ANW --> not Pop(H) which gives us the conclusion that Huang's postimpressionist paintings are not Huang's pop art paintings: PImp(H) --> not Pop(H) Is this what is meant by circular reasoning?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe July 7, 2020

Hi @Brett-Lindsay,

Thanks for the question! So the “circular reasoning” here actually alludes to the fact that the conclusion basically relies on itself in the premises. Here, we see that the conclusion basically restates the second premise. So thinking the conclusion is true requires thinking that the second premise is true, but the second premise is the conclusion. So if you think that the conclusion’s true, you’re committing circular reasoning.

In general, circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion assumes itself in the premises. A better example often used involves religion. Here’s an argument:

The Bible is the word of God
The Bible says God exists.
Conclusion: God exists.

From a purely logical point of view, this is a circular argument. Why? Because the first premise, the Bible is the word of God, relies on assuming that God exists. So you’re using the fact that God exists to prove that God exists, and this is circular reasoning.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Brett-Lindsay July 8, 2020

Thanks @shunhe,

I think I get it. I certainly get the Bible example.

So, to clarify, anytime we simply restate one of the premises without adding anything of value, we're engaging in circular reasoning?

Thanks.

shunhe July 9, 2020

Basically, anytime the conclusion restates a premise, yes. Since the conclusion is then relying on the truth of that premise to itself be true.

Brett-Lindsay July 11, 2020

Awesome! Thanks, @shunhe

shunhe July 13, 2020

You're welcome!