GMAT CR: Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Quick Summary

Circular reasoning happens when an argument assumes its conclusion is already true and then simply uses that assumption to prove the same conclusion. Example: “This plan will work because successful plans work.” That just restates the claim without new support.

Overview

This overview introduces circular reasoning: arguments that assume what they aim to prove, restating the conclusion as evidence. On GMAT Critical Reasoning, recognition depends on mapping premises, testing for independent support, and spotting restatements or self-referential loops. The video outlines quick diagnostics; the article adds concise checks and examples to apply under time. Mastering this lens deepens logical clarity in GMAT prep and enhances evaluative writing and interview reasoning expected across MBA admissions. Use it to read arguments with discipline.

 

Understanding Circular Reasoning Fallacy in GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions

Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed within its premise, leaving the reasoning hollow. Instead of offering independent evidence, the argument simply restates its conclusion in a disguised form. On the GMAT CR, such reasoning is considered a serious logical flaw because it relies on repetition rather than actual proof.

 

Simple Illustrations of Circular Reasoning

Consider the following…

Jack cannot lie because Jack always tells the truth.

• This is circular because the supposed evidence is simply the conclusion rewritten.

There is not enough seating space on campus because there are too many students.

• This reasoning is flawed since it only restates the problem without providing genuine reasoning.

A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

• • This circular loop provides no independent support and cannot establish validity.

 

GMAT-Like Example of Circular Reasoning

Consider the following dialogue…

Hamdi: President Zoolander cannot win in a fair election in Fitaro.

 Alper: As per reliable international observers, Fitaro had a fair election and Zoolander is winning.

Hamdi: If this is true, international observers are unfair.

Question: Of the following statements, which best identifies the biggest logical flaw in Hamdi’s response?

Correct Answer: He argues in circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.

• The flaw here is clear. The first person assumes their claim is correct and dismisses external evidence by attacking its source. This is classic circular reasoning, where an unsupported assertion is used to reject opposing proof.

How to Handle Circular Reasoning on the GMAT CR

When confronted with arguments or dialogues that seem repetitive or self-referential, step back and ask: “Is the conclusion being independently supported, or is it just being rephrased?” If no fresh reasoning is added, the flaw is circularity. Answer choices often contain clues in their wording. Phrases such as “argues in a circle” or “relies on an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence” directly indicate this fallacy. Recognizing these signals can help in quickly eliminating incorrect options and arriving at the correct one.

Stepwise Strategy for Solving These Questions

Step 1: Read the question stem first to clarify the exact requirement.

Step 2: Trace the reasoning carefully; build a Mind map and identify the missing link.

Step 3: Frame your broad expectation from the correct answer choice.

Step 4: Eliminate four options; the option that remains is your answer.

Verify before you confirm.

 

Why Recognizing Circular Reasoning Matters

The GMAT does not test memorization of fallacy names but the ability to spot flawed logic in real time. Identifying circular reasoning not only secures points in Critical Reasoning but also strengthens overall reasoning ability. Such clarity in thinking is crucial for business school success, where leaders must distinguish between sound arguments and those that merely echo themselves.

Key Takeaways

This article highlight the need to identify when arguments fall into circular reasoning, where a conclusion is simply repeated in the premise without fresh evidence. On the GMAT, such flaws can appear convincing unless carefully examined. The skill lies in asking whether the reasoning introduces new support or merely rephrases its claim. Regular practice through GMAT simulations helps students sharpen their ability to spot these loops quickly, ensuring clarity, precision, and stronger logical reasoning both during preparation and beyond.

Parting Thought

Circular reasoning teaches us that progress cannot come from endlessly repeating the same assumptions. True growth, whether in academics, professional decisions, or personal life, requires independent evidence and clarity of thought. On the GMAT, spotting circular arguments strengthens analytical precision; in MBA applications, it sharpens the ability to present authentic reasoning; in life, it reminds us to avoid cycles of untested beliefs. Practicing with a GMAT mock builds this discipline, training the mind to seek fresh perspectives, evaluate critically, and move forward with logic that is both grounded and purposeful.