What does "circular reasoning" imply?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise to support itself. This means that the argument essentially restates its conclusion as a premise without providing any independent evidence or justification for it. The reasoning goes in a 'circle' because it doesn't truly advance an argument or provide logical support outside of its own conclusion.

For example, if someone argues that "The law is just because it is fair," they are using "fairness" as both a premise and a conclusion without offering separate evidence to substantiate that claim. This lack of outside reasoning is what distinguishes circular reasoning from valid arguments that provide distinct premises to support their conclusions.

Understanding that this flaw leads to a lack of logical progression is crucial in evaluating the strength of arguments in logical reasoning tests.