One names circular argument an argument where a proposal has uses for its justification a proposal B in same time that the justification of the proposal B requires the validity of proposal A.

In the case running, that constitutes a form of Sophisme.

Example: Our bureaucracy is a capital element in our operation (A) proposal, because it generates many documents, which I it recall, are extremely invaluable! (B) proposal since useful for the suitable operation of our glorious bureaucracy, if vital!!!

Comic because obvious in short sentences, this type of argumentation becomes on the contrary much more difficult to detect when the loop is lengthened and comprised more than two elements. Because the " retour" jump less to the eyes, whereas on the contrary, all the construction of the argumentation seems (and is) locally and at every moment, relevant and logical.

However, the circular arguments are not stripped of interest for as much: their presence indicates that a system including/understanding the proposals has and B would not be necessarily autocontradictoire , which constitutes a beginning of knowledge about it, provided B has as well as are correctly defined in operational terms. This type of stable loops is considered in detail through many examples in the book of Douglas Hofstadter “Gödel, Escher, Bach”.

See too

• Logical Petitio principii
• Autocontradiction