Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is included in its premise. This means that the argument goes in a circle without providing any real evidence or support. For example, saying that the law is valid because it is enforced by the government does not provide a valid reason for its validity. In circular reasoning, the argument does not advance understanding or provide new information. Instead, it relies on the assumption that the conclusion is true without proving it. This type of reasoning can often be found in debates and discussions, where participants may unintentionally reinforce their own beliefs without offering substantial justification.