If you justify A by appeal to B, then justify B by appeal to C, and then justify C by appeal to A, what kind of fallacy have you committed?

The scenario described involves a circular reasoning fallacy, often referred to as "begging the question" or "circular argument." This fallacy occurs when an argument's conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Understanding the Structure: You're justifying A by B, B by C, and C by A. This creates a loop where A, B, and C are all relying on one another for justification without providing independent evidence for any of them.

2. Circular Reasoning: In logic and critical thinking, an argument is circular if the conclusion restates a part of the premise. Therefore, each proposition effectively goes back to the initial premise (A), making the argument invalid.

3. Implicated Fallacy: Since each proposition is dependent on another in a closed loop, this creates a lack of foundational support for the argument, leading to a strategy of reasoning that fails to effectively substantiate its claims.

In summary, relying on a series of circular justifications undermines the argument's validity, as it fails to provide an objective basis for acceptance.