Self-study
Although human economic exchange predates historical records, it is clear that Conclusion the very first economies were based on barter and that money came later. ████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ███████ █████████ ██████
Argument Summary
The author wants to prove something about the very beginning of human economic history: that the first economies used barter, and money came along later. What evidence does the author use to support this? She points to historical examples where, in isolated places, currency largely disappeared from the local economy. When that happened, those economies typically used a barter system. And when currency became available again, those economies dropped barter and returned to using money.
"The Original Barter System"
The author asserts in one of his premises that economies reverted to "the original barter system." But isn't the author trying to prove that the first economies were based on barter (i.e. that they were the original system)? By calling barter "the original" system, the premise is already assuming that barter came first, which is what the conclusion asserts. This is circular reasoning: the author's evidence assumes the very thing it's supposed to help prove.
Imagine someone who doesn't already believe barter came first. Would the premise convince them? No, because the premise describes economies reverting to "the original barter system," which could make sense only if barter was already the original system. The premise can't do its job without the conclusion already being true.
22.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
a
The argument concludes ████ █████████ ███ █████ █ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ████████
The conclusion doesn't assert any causal relationship. The author claims that the first economies were barter-based, not that barter caused anything to happen.
b
The argument contains ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████
The premises don't contradict each other. It's perfectly consistent for an isolated economy to revert to barter when currency disappears and then switch back to currency when it becomes available again. Those two facts describe different moments in time and fit together without any conflict.
c
The argument presumes ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████
The conclusion doesn't recommend or prescribe anything. The author never says we should use barter, or that barter is better than money, or that anything ought to be done at all. The conclusion is purely descriptive: the first economies were barter-based.
d
The argument infers █ ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████
You might be drawn to (D) because the argument does involve a claim about historical ordering: barter came first, money came later. So "one event occurred before the other" sounds like it fits. But (D) describes a specific flaw where someone sees that A happened before B and then incorrectly concludes that A caused B. That's not what happens here. The author never claims barter caused money to develop. The argument's flaw is circularity, not a confusion between sequence and causation.
e
The argument relies ██ █ ███████ ████ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████
This accurately describes the circular reasoning. The premise describes economies reverting to "the original barter system," which presupposes that barter was the original economic system. But proving that barter was the original economic system is exactly what the conclusion is trying to do. So the premise can be persuasive support for the conclusion only if you already accept the conclusion. That's what it means for a premise to "presuppose what the argument attempts to show."