I think that if premises are just facts, then they are assumed to be true. But in these case, this"original" is the view that the author wanted to prove. Further, if it is already true that the barter system is original, why there have to be this argument, so it is a circular reasoning.
I think that if premises are just facts, then they are assumed to be true. But in these case, this"original" is the view that the author wanted to prove. Further, if it is already true that the barter system is original, why there have to be this argument, so it is a circular reasoning.