I am having trouble seeing the relation between cyclic groups/subgroups and inverses; to my knowledge it's cyclic if it can be generated by a single element that spans it across a larger group, but I fail to see how inverses can be cleverly proved using the definition of cyclicism (being cyclic)
so lets suppose...
A is a group of size $4$, denoted $|A| = 4$ ; now prove that A is not cyclic, and then that every element of A is its own inverse
my idea:
A group of order $n$ is cyclic if and only if it has an element of order $n$, now using this definition we could (maybe) draw the conclusion that if our group is order 4 then it's element can't also have order 4 without being the entire group A itself and thus can't be cyclic (?). But then I'm not sure how inverses tie into this unfortunately....
any and all help is appreciated !!
You have the correct intuition. Now, combine the definition of the order of an element and the definition of the inverse, and you're done.