Here’s a real life example, from a 2004 George Bush press conference
>The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.
He’s not actually giving the reason, he restates the original premise and acts as if it’s supporting evidence.
Here’s another example
>smoking cigarettes can kill you because they are deadly
It’s doesn’t answer the question WHY cigarettes are deadly. Just like George Bush didn’t answer the question of WHY he’s so sure there’s a relationship between Iraq and al qaeda.
Latest Answers