Duszek, you may find it easier to deal with the examples by taking out "because", stripping away the implications, and reducing each situation to the actual statements being made.
He is lovable. I love him.
What was the question? (You can't beg one, unless you can ask it.) Two statements are made that mean [almost - I could quibble] the same thing. Neither causes the other nor explains anything nor leads to any further conclusion.
1. I am passive. (This explains nothing. Active people, even aggressive people, can love someone.)
2. and I do what I cannot resist. (Who doesn't? )
3. I love a lovable person and cannot help it.
This makes sense, but doesn't convey any information beyond the statement "I love him". We have no common definition of "lovable" the way we had a legal definition of "murder": though there may be large areas of overlap, each of us finds a slightly different set of traits "lovable".
More: Of course you can't help it - love isn't an action one can choose to carry out, but a state of mind that befalls us. So, statements 2. and 3. are true of anyone in love, without explaining why they love whom they love. Statement 1. was simply irrelevant.
This one can be an actual argument: it does contain cause-effect relationships. You have introduced a change .In 2. [He is lovable because i love him] the beloved can become lovable because under the loving influence he becomes gentle and attractive.
This makes sense too.
1. He was a mean, slovenly SOB.
2. I loved him anyway.
3. Now, he is gentle and well-groomed.
4. Now, other people love him, too.
Therefore: My love made him lovable.
By the way, the converse of a circular argument is not necessarily equivalent, especially when the = is a "because" word. In your example: "I love him because he is lovable" [@& = &@], is nothing more than a circular way of saying "I find that person lovable.", wherein 'because' is meaningless.
However, "He is lovable because I love him." [&@ < $&@] is a much bigger claim: that my influence affected a change in the other person, wherein 'because' is an active agent.
Whenever you want to assess an argument, watch for two things: the smuggled-in Plus that Londoner referred to (in this example, the change from some previous state to lovability) and the false "because", which doesn't really show how one thing made another thing happen. Advertisers, spin doctors and propagandists use these tricks all the time. A statement "makes sense" but its claims don't stand up to critical scrutiny.
ETA This just in.
Sure. She's not making an argument; she's merely answering a limited question.A: Why do you want this doll ?
B: Because it´s the hottest one.
Would you consider B´s answer as a logical one ?
She wasn't asked for those particulars. We can infer them from her answer, but we should not rush to a conclusion on insufficient evidence. It might be that her niece - under the influence of advertising or envy begged her for the doll and B is giving in to personal affection, rather than trendiness.B is not specific whether she is a conformist or whether the advitisement convinced her.
That's a whole different story. Someone commanded or conducted them in that response. At face value, the inference would be: many dolls have some kind of heat source within them, but this one burns at the highest temperature. We might also extrapolate that the nights are cold, the Greeks are all single and they need something hot to snuggle up to. But none of that is stated. Nothing is explained.We can make it plural:
Pericles asks the Greeks gathered in the agora:
Why do you want this toy ?
They answer in a choir: because it is the hottest one.
I should think this would put the Athenians off it. They must be very cold!(Also Spartans like it, and Phenicians and Persians and Macedonians.)