The stimulus basically says that the value of money comes from the rarity of the "currency being used". The currency being used on the Solomo Island is not rare because because there is an unlimited amount of it washing up on the beach. It is asking you to find an answer that explains how its it so valuable if there are so money.
Answer D basically says... yes, there are a lot of Cowrie Shells on the beach, BUT what is used for Currency are the ones that are polished and carved by the neighboring people and because it takes so much to polish and carve it it isn't as common or available. So it makes it rare, thus, valuable.
The answer explains why the Cowrie Shells is considered rare which is what the first person speaking describe as the requirement that defines the value of money.
There is an apparent paradox going on in this question and I say apparent because there are potential way stop resolve the discrepancy. If it were true that money derives value from scarcity no matter the culture, then why is the case these people were able to use cowrie shells as their currency when there was an apparent surplus of them? Maybe only cowrie shells of a certain quality are used for currency so that could potentially resolve the whole scarcity issue and that's what D gets at.
Comments
The stimulus basically says that the value of money comes from the rarity of the "currency being used". The currency being used on the Solomo Island is not rare because because there is an unlimited amount of it washing up on the beach. It is asking you to find an answer that explains how its it so valuable if there are so money.
Answer D basically says... yes, there are a lot of Cowrie Shells on the beach, BUT what is used for Currency are the ones that are polished and carved by the neighboring people and because it takes so much to polish and carve it it isn't as common or available. So it makes it rare, thus, valuable.
The answer explains why the Cowrie Shells is considered rare which is what the first person speaking describe as the requirement that defines the value of money.
I hope that helps.
There is an apparent paradox going on in this question and I say apparent because there are potential way stop resolve the discrepancy. If it were true that money derives value from scarcity no matter the culture, then why is the case these people were able to use cowrie shells as their currency when there was an apparent surplus of them? Maybe only cowrie shells of a certain quality are used for currency so that could potentially resolve the whole scarcity issue and that's what D gets at.