Irrational Mobius Chain

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.