Argument from synonyms

You support a claim by saying it again in other words. The argument works because the support talks about something differently named and says something differently phrased about it, yet each is merely another way of putting what the claim already said, so accepting the one means accepting the other. It can be attacked by pointing out that the support adds no independent reason to believe the claim, so the reasoning goes round in a circle.

Example

Freedom of speech is important because being able to say what you want is crucial

Standardised form

Freedom of speech (a) is important (X) because being able to say what you want (b) is crucial (Y).

Transformations applied: none — the example is already in canonical form.

Classification

Both the subjects and the predicates differ, so the argument form is gamma (a is X because b is Y).

The relation between the subjects “freedom of speech” and “being able to say what you want” is the same as the relation between the predicates “is important” and “is crucial”, so the argument substance is i.

The keyword SYNONYMOUS describes the relation that the subjects and the predicates both instantiate. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Being able to say what you want (b) is SYNONYMOUS to freedom of speech (a), as crucial (Y) is SYNONYMOUS to important (X)”.

Not to be confused with

• Argument from opposites — The matching relation is opposition rather than sameness of meaning. OPPOSITE
• Argument from derivatives — One term is formed from the other. DERIVATIVE
• Argument from integratives — The relation is part to whole. INTEGRATIVE
• Non sequitur — Substance, not lever: the two relations do not match, so no lever can be formulated. d

Source

Source not yet recorded.

Notes

Many scholars consider this type of argument to be fallacious, because the premise does not introduce any genuinely new or independent support for the conclusion. Instead the premise merely restates the conclusion in a slightly different form, and so fails to increase the conclusion’s acceptability or persuasiveness. Since the reasoning simply goes in a circle, assuming what it sets out to prove, this fallacy is traditionally referred to as petitio principii, or, more commonly, as “circular reasoning”.