What is the type of reasoning that restates assertions without providing support?

The type of reasoning that restates assertions without providing support is known as circular reasoning. This occurs when an argument's conclusion is the same as one of its premises, essentially going in a circle without offering valid evidence or new information to substantiate the claim. For example, if someone argues that a product is the best because it is superior, they haven't actually provided any evidence beyond their initial assertion. This type of reasoning fails to advance a logical discussion or persuade effectively, as it does not engage with supporting facts or logical deductions.

In contrast, a valid argument refers to a structure that properly connects premises to a conclusion, ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. Sound reasoning involves both a valid argument and true premises, leading to a legitimately supported conclusion. Critical thinking encompasses evaluating arguments, identifying biases, and assessing the quality of reasoning used in discussions, which is contrary to simply restating claims without evidence.