The argument isn’t trying to prove that the primary use of one object “transfers” to another. That refers to the idea that gold/silver/feathers’ use as decoration can then cause beads to be used as decoration.

The argument doesn’t assume that uses “transferred” from gold/silver/feathers to beads. There’s no indication that people who used gold/silver/feathers for currency then started to use beads as currency or replaced their use of gold/silver/feathers as currency for beads. The argument is simply based on the historical pattern observed in items initially used for decoration. The author thinks it’s expected that beads would follow that pattern; this doesn’t involve a use transferring from gold/silver/feathers to beads.

An object (beads) having a certain original use (decoration) is likely to have the same derivative use (currency) as do other objects (gold/silver/feathers) having that original use (decoration). (C) strengthens the argument by making explicit the assumption that because other items used for decoration came to be used for currency, we can expect the same thing would happen to beads.

(D) allows us to prove that an object can’t take on a derivative use if it doesn’t stop having its original use. But we’re trying to prove that we can expect an object to have a derivative use. We’re not trying to prove that an object can’t take on a derivative use.

(E) connects the idea of representing value “in general” to being valued to particular uses. But the argument isn’t moving from an object representing value in general to some particular valuable use. The argument is going from one set of objects being used as currency to another object being used as currency.