PT82.S01.Q22 - This one really confused me

odonnellfreddy

This one really confused me because I thought we were always supposed to assume that the premises are automatically true. So the author saying "original" would be a statement of fact rather than circular reasoning. Could someone #help

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Dexterity

Generally, we're supposed to take premises at face value, yes. We're not rejecting a premise here, though; we're just pointing out that said premise does nothing to support the author's conclusion. Why not? Because it's phrased in a way that assumes that the barter system is the "original" economic system, which is exactly what the conclusion is. When an argument assumes what it's trying to prove, that's circular reasoning (aka begging the question.)