Reasoning that merely restates assertions in different words is called?

Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself. In this reasoning, one simply restates the claim or assertion in different terms without providing actual evidence or rationale that supports that claim.

For example, if someone argues that a certain idea is true simply because it is valid or a fundamental belief, they are essentially going in a circle without offering any new information or evidence to substantiate their assertion. This type of reasoning fails to advance the discussion or persuade others since it does not engage with external evidence or alternative viewpoints.

In contrast, slippery slope arguments suggest that one action will lead to a series of negative consequences without substantiating the causal connections. Meanwhile, a false dichotomy presents only two options when there may be more, restricting the argument's scope unfairly. Overgeneralization occurs when conclusions are drawn from insufficient evidence, often leading to stereotypes or blanket statements. These other fallacies demonstrate different types of reasoning errors but do not accurately describe the act of simply restating assertions as seen in circular reasoning.