Circular Reasoning

Now, when putting forth a case for a particular worldview, we often link together many different pieces of information. It is important however, that each argument stand on it's own ground. Certainly if you took the obvious conclusion for every single example you end up with mutually exclusive ideas, so to some degree it is necessary to interpret some situations based on the whole. But, the majority of conclusions should stand independent without needing to be proved by seemingly unrelated topics. The whole should not be constructed by a long series of circular arguments, for if it is it is just a house of cards. Take out one piece, and the whole thing collapses. Does this make any sense?