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.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
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.