The basic problem with the argument is that the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion. Irving Copi divides informal fallacies into those of relevance and those of ambiguity. This argument is not ambiguous. It is all too clear that the conclusion doesn't follow.
Reification does not fit because in reification one is not concluding that something exists out of nowhere, such as A in this example, but one accepts that A exists as an abstract idea and the argument claims it is concrete.
The same goes for circular reasoning. Although the premises look circular what makes an argument circular reasoning is that one of the premises already claims A exists. Neither of these premises go that far.
A name for such a fallacy might be simply "non sequitur" although such a name seems very broad. Bo Bennett describes it as
(also known as: derailment, “that does not follow”, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support, argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of], non-sequitur)
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.
Bennet, B. Non Sequitur. Retrieved on June 14, 2019 from Logically Fallacious at https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/136/Non-Sequitur
Copi. I. M. Introduction to Logic. Sixth Edition. Macmillan (1982)