Some persuasive texts rely on common but faulty forms of reasoning. Which term refers to these faulty ways of reasoning?

The question above is not extremely clear, but perhaps the following details about this kind of reasoning will be helpful. Faulty reasoning, also known as faulty logic or logical fallacy, occurs when the data in a line of reasoning fails to support its conclusions. In such cases, the author uses faulty conclusions to persuade the intended audience to change their position on a topic. There is a myriad of logical fallacies, but one commonly used form of faulty reasoning is circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning occurs when an argument “goes in a circle” but fails to prove the original claim with something other than the original claim. When the conclusion is the same as the claim, the logic is therefore circular. For example, if someone claims that Rembrandt was an excellent painter because he painted excellently, the logic is circular. Supporting the claim that an author paints well because he paints well fails to prove the original claim with supporting evidence. A better form of logic would be to say Rembrandt was an excellent painter because he mastered the self-portrait. The claim is that he was an excellent painter, and this is supported by giving an example of something he mastered during his career.