Consider a circular argument: Premise A is true because premise A says so. (it's really an assertion, isn't it?)
It's circular (or perhaps recursive...) because you can do this and have the same result: Premise A is true because premise A says so, thus premise A is true because premise A says so, thus premise A is true because premise A says so, thus...
One who employs a circular argument tends to be close-minded; that is, any opposing arguments are considered invalid by default.
If we stick a circular argument on a Möbius strip, we have a wonderful pun: This argument is one-sided and has no logical conclusion.
This configuration has four interlocking strips: [1] : A -> A therefore [1] [2] : vanilla ice cream is my favorite because I like it best, so [2] [3] : my logic is perfect because I do not make mistakes in proofs, so we must conclude that [3] [4] : my holy book is infallible because it says it is infallible here on its pages, so it follows that [4]
[1] is the unifying abstract. It tells us, in logic, that any assertion assumed to be true is obviously going to hold when it is assumed to be true. [2] is the textbook case of a silly and inconsequential circular argument. [3] is simply absurd, given the context. [4] is something you might actually hear someone say, albeit not in those precise words.