B.5.RR:5.3 - A repeated conclusion loses its starting support

An analysis establishes claim A from an observation O, derives B from A and uses B in a further argument for A. A corrected interpretation of O removes its support for A.

The second occurrence of A does not preserve that support: its offered reason B was itself obtained from A. Reopen both uses and look for an argument grounded in retained premises. The conclusion may be true, but this circular route no longer establishes it.

Contrast this with an induction argument whose base case remains established and whose step derives the next case from the preceding one. Its recurrence has a grounded way to obtain each finite case. The relevant inference, rather than the visual presence of a cycle or repeated letter, decides what can be retained.