What type of reasoning attempts to combine premises and conclusions without factual support?

Circular reasoning is a type of logical argument where the conclusion is included in the premise, effectively creating a loop where no external evidence is provided to support the claim. This means that the argument assumes what it is trying to prove, resulting in a situation where the reasoning does not provide any new information or support for the conclusion. For example, if someone asserts that "The law is just because it is fair," they are using circular reasoning because the premise (the law is fair) simply restates the conclusion (the law is just) without offering any factual support or independent reasoning.

This tactic can be problematic as it doesn’t provide valid evidence and leads to faulty arguments that do not advance understanding. In this context, circular reasoning is often recognized as a flaw in logical argumentation since it can persuade individuals to accept a conclusion without scrutinizing the underlying premises critically.