#22 - Although human economic exchange predates historical

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Tyler]

Hi,

I chose answer A for this question but would like a little more clarification regarding why E is correct. I believe I understand the premise E is referring to, specifically "the economy typically reverts to the original barter system", but wanted to know exactly how this presupposes what the argument is trying to show? Is it because the premise includes the word "typically"? Thanks!

[mattnj]

The wording of the correct choice indicates it is circular reasoning, right? "presupposes what the argument attempts to show". But I am not seeing which part of the stimulus contains circular reasoning?

[James Finch]

Hi Tyler and Matt,

Correct, this is a circular reasoning flaw. These are fairly rare and so can be difficult to spot, but become clearer when all the language in the stimulus is parsed. The stimulus begins with its conclusion, that barter predated currency. This conclusion is based on a couple premises, supplied over two sentences, that state that there were times in history when currency disappeared for some reason, and during these times people in the affected areas reverted to the original barter system. The words "revert" and "original" mean that this premise is actually presupposing the truth of what it purportedly proves, that barter was the original system, and currency came later. It is easy to miss this phrasing, but it's key to to catching the flaw.

Hope this helps!

[mattnj]

Thanks, again!

[harvoolio]

So, I understand circular reasoning correctly, is it similar to faith in God? My best friend is an Evangelical Christian and states his conviction is based on proof and not faith, because of the Bible and many other things. I gently point out, though, that his proof presupposes the existence of God or that God wrote or inspired the Bible.

Similarly, with this problem, one could easily conclude that "when the barter system disappears the economy reverts to the original currency system, but then quickly abandons this form of exchange when barter becomes available again." I had pre-phrased "When one thing disappears the other appears and when one thing appears the other disappears, could mean neither is causing the other or the reverse of the hypothesized cause is causing the other."

Thanks.

Note: The above post is not intended to offend anybody's religious beliefs.

[Adam Tyson]

I think I'll stay away from the analogy you raised here, harvoolio! What makes this argument circular is that the author includes in his premise the very thing he is trying to prove. In his premises he refers to the barter system as "the original barter system" and says that when money goes away the economy "reverts" to it, which presumes that it had a barter system prior to having a monetary system. Presuming the thing you are setting out to prove is the very definition of circular reasoning!

A hallmark of circular reasoning is a lack of evidence in support of the conclusion, other than evidence that merely restates that conclusion in some way. "X must be true, because X cannot be false" is such an argument. "My team is the best team because it is better than all the others" is another. "Everything this book says must be true because the book is true and says so" is yet another.

Your prephrase wouldn't technically be a circular argument, because it would be using a correlation to support a causal claim. That's flawed, to be sure, because as you said there could be another cause or the causal relationship could be reversed, but there is at least some evidence (the correlation) used to attempt to support a different conclusion (the causal relationship). A circular argument involving cause and effect would be something like "A must be causing B, because B is an effect of A."

I hope that helps some!

[lanereuden]

The premises are totally contradictory (answer choice B). “Although human economic exchange predate historical record...” and then later says, it can “be inferred from occasions of history that” ...how is this possible if your records for this topic don’t exist?

[Brook Miscoski]

lanereuden,

You are mistaking the first instance (prior to historical record) for the second instance (during the historical record, but reverting to an old form of exchange). There is no contradiction.

The stimulus tries to infer something about prehistory by looking at the later, recorded, behavior of humans.

[StephLewis13]

Hello Powerscore,

I understand the reasoning of E, but I wanted to get confirmation of why D was incorrect. I initially thought D because the author was saying that two events were causally related because one event (barter) occurred before another event (money). This is wrong because the author is assuming that barter happened before money, when in fact money could have happened before barter. That's the real issue here. It's not a premise that we must accept as true. It is the author's assumption. The author assumes M - B, when that is the very thing (s)he sets out to prove. I think I was attracted to D because this is a very common flaw type: assuming a causal relationship from two events. You would show either the reverse, an alternative, etc.