What is a common characteristic of a logical fallacy related to circular reasoning?

A logical fallacy related to circular reasoning is characterized by the argument's reliance on its own conclusion as a premise. This means the argument essentially assumes the very thing it is attempting to prove, creating a loop that does not provide independent support for its claims. For example, a statement like "I believe that I am trustworthy because I am honest" does not provide evidence beyond the assertion and simply restates part of the claim being made. This self-referential nature of circular reasoning makes it difficult to evaluate the argument, as it does not offer any new information or valid reasoning outside of the conclusion itself.

In contrast, avoiding the use of evidence generally pertains to a different type of logical fallacy called an appeal to ignorance or an unsupported assertion. Using complex language might confuse the issue but does not necessarily relate to the essence of circular reasoning. Providing unrelated evidence could relate to another fallacy, such as red herring, where the argument presents information that distracts from the actual point, but this too is distinct from circular reasoning. Thus, the characteristic that defines circular reasoning is its assumption of what it seeks to prove, making it an inherently flawed argument form.