- Wed Sep 03, 2025 2:27 pm
#114259
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.