On the circular logic fallacy.

Spotting circular logic. According to GROK. 

The circular logic fallacy, also known as circular reasoning or begging the question, happens when an argument’s conclusion is assumed to be true within its own premises, creating a loop where no real evidence or reasoning is provided outside the circle. Essentially, the argument proves itself by restating the conclusion as a premise, rather than offering independent support for it.

Here’s how it works: In a valid argument, premises should lead to a conclusion through evidence or reasoning that stands on its own. In circular logic, the premise already contains the conclusion in disguise, so the argument doesn’t actually advance or prove anything—it just spins in place. It’s like saying, “I’m right because I’m right.”

For example:

"God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it’s the word of God."

Here, the conclusion (God exists) relies on the premise (the Bible is true), but the premise’s truth is justified by assuming the conclusion (God’s existence) is already correct. The reasoning loops back on itself without offering external evidence—like, say, historical or scientific support—that could break the circle.

Another example:"This herbal supplement works because it’s effective, and it’s effective because it works."

This just repeats the same claim in different words, providing no real proof or explanation.

Circular logic often sneaks into debates where people lean on assumptions they don’t question, or when they’re trying to defend something without solid grounding. It’s a fallacy because it fails to justify the conclusion with anything beyond itself, leaving the argument empty. Spotting it helps you push for actual evidence instead of getting trapped in a rhetorical merry-go-round.