#22 - Although human economic exchange predates historical

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Steph,

The author here doesn't make a causal claim---the author isn't claiming barter caused money or money caused bartering. They were just two events that occurred (events whose order is unproven by the argument). It would be like saying that I Love Lucy occurred before George Bush was elected president. Sure, that's true, but it's not a causal claim just because it's a time based claim. Similarly here, we have a claim about the order of events, but no claim about any causal relationship between those two events.

Hope that helps!

[April30Gang]

Hello,

I have a question about D. Would it have been correct if the author said.

The argument infers one event occurred before the other based on the fact of a mere correlation?

[Beth Hayden]

Hi April,

You are right that the author assumes that bartering must have come before currency just because of the correlation they stated. I don't think you are likely to see an answer choice like that because it's a bit vague--answer choice (D) more directly targets the issues of causation/correlation--but it's absolutely a flaw in the reasoning.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[lsatquestions]

I selected B because I thought that "currency largely disappeared from the local economy" contradicted "reverting back to the original barter system." I took the first premise to mean that currency existed originally then disappeared and the second to mean the barter system was the original system. Can you please explain the error I made in my reasoning?

[Adam Tyson]

You're assuming that currency disappearing from an economy can only happen if the currency was always there. But you shouldn't make any assumptions about the stimulus! The author is saying that first there was barter, and then money, and then, in some cases, money goes away and barter returns. There's no contradiction in those ideas! The problem is that the author is assuming that barter came first, and using that as evidence that barter came first. A rare case of circular reasoning!

Contradictory premises - aka an Internal Contradiction - occurs only when two claims made by the author are mutually exclusive, which means it is impossible for them both to be true. Those are very rare on the LSAT, as are Circular arguments. Here, one super rare flaw type appeared in the stimulus, and they tossed in a different super rare one as a trap answer.

[nicizle]

Can someone dive deeper into why D is wrong? The author is saying that a lack of currency induces bartering, and when currency becomes available again, bartering stops. How is this not a causal claim?

I understand why E is correct, but I'm not sure of how to eliminate D, or that I understand previous post explanations of why.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi nicizle,

When analyzing an argument and looking for possible flaws, you generally want to focus on the conclusion, as that is often where the flaw appears (specifically, the relationship between the premises and the conclusion). The conclusion of this argument is not causal. Stating that "the very first economies were based on barter and that money came later" does not have any causal reasoning. Even in the premises, the "typically reverts" language is not causal.

What Answer D would be describing would be if the argument concluded a causal relationship based on two things happening in order. Here's an example of an argument that would contain the flaw in Answer D.

Premise: I ate cereal this morning and then later I became sick.
Conclusion: Therefore, eating cereal caused me to get sick.

This is not the flaw in the stimulus. While the actual flaw in the stimulus (circular reasoning) is very rare as a correct answer, it's important to recognize it on the rare occasion it appears. If you ever see a premise that is logically equivalent to the conclusion, that is the flaw in the argument. If you're able to spot the flaw and prephrase it here, the answer will be some description of circular reasoning, as only Answer E does. In short, if an answer isn't describing circular reasoning, then it will be wrong for this question.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

Although human economic exchange predates historical records, it is clear that the very first economies were based on barter and that money came later. This can be inferred from occasions in history when, in isolated places, currency largely disappeared from the local economy. At such times, the economy typically reverts to the original barter system, but then quickly abandons this form of exchange when currency becomes available again.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument’s reasoning?

(A) The argument concludes that something can cause a particular outcome merely because it is necessary for that outcome.

Conclusion: “it is clear that the very first economies were based on barter and that money came later”

No. The conclusion says barter first money second, nothing about “cause a particular outcome” let alone about “merely because it is necessary for that outcome.”

(B) The argument contains premises that contradict one another.

Yes!? The premise says “At such times [‘when…currency largely disappeared from the local economy’], the economy typically reverts to the original barter system, but then quickly abandons this form of exchange when currency becomes available again.”

currency largely disappeared -> reverts to the original barter system (NOT currency -> barter)

when currency becomes available again -> quickly abandons this form of exchange (currency -> NOT barter) MISTAKEN NEGATION!!! However, apparently a mistaken negation isn't a contradiction, why?

The contrapositives: (NOT barter -> currency) (barter -> NOT currency)

(C)The argument presumes that something should be done merely because historically it has been done.

No. The argument doesn’t say anything about “something should be done.”

(D) The argument infers a causal relation between two events merely from the fact that one event occurred before the other.

No. The argument doesn’t infer a causal relationship, more like a temporal relationship.

(E) The argument relies on a premise that presupposes what the argument attempts to show in the conclusion.

Maybe? That would be circular reasoning. The oversimplified argument is NOT currency -> barter and currency -> NOT barter. Therefore, barter first money second. That doesn’t seem circular? However, it is. Can someone please explain how barter no currency, currency no barter, therefore, barter first money second is circular? Do I have the argument wrong?

Thank you.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

Follow up.

So is it circular because the conclusion says barter is original, money is second. And the support for that is when there isn’t money (the second thing) then that shows barter must be the original thing? So, is money being second just supposed to be a distraction here? And all that really matters is the conclusion says barter is original and the support says barter must be the original thing?

Thank you.