PT152 S2 Q22 ExplanationAlthough human economic exchange

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Flaw6% picked this

   The argument concludes that something can cause a particular outcome merely because it is necessary

   This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which the author presents a conditional statement and then uses it illegally in some Backwards or Opposite fashion. This argument didn't have any conditional logic.

   6%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw15% picked this

   The argument contains premises that contradict

   This refers to the famous flaw called Internal Contradiction. This answer is almost never right. Do any of the claims in the paragraph contradict each other? No. Contradiction is like saying "The sky is blue ... also, the sky is not blue."

   15%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   The argument presumes that something should be done merely because historically it

   This accuses the argument of having made this move from Premise to Conclusion: X has been historically done ? X should be done The conclusion doesn't have any normative language like "should". It's just describing that the first economies were barter, not advocating that we should have barter-based economies.

   6%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw25% picked this

   The argument infers a causal relation between two events merely from the fact that one event

   This refers to the famous Causal Flaw. Does the author's conclusion make a causal claim? Nope. It just says that the first economies were barter, not money. It doesn't say X contributes to Y, or anything of that sort.

   25%
5. E

   Correct48% picked this

   The argument relies on a premise that presupposes what the argument attempts to show

   Why this is right

   This is a wretched argument / answer combo, but the one thing we can say is that the other four answers are not in any way tempting, because none of them match up at all. This answer refers to the famous flaw Circular Reasoning, which is almost never the right answer. Almost never. :) LSAT was somehow expecting us to hear the last sentence as the author's biased speculation (i.e. the author is just assuming that they economies who lost currency "reverted to the original barter system") rather than the author reporting on an anthropological fact. We were supposed to think the author was looking at a society that 1. had money 2. lost it 3. switched to barter 4. switched to money when it was available again And the author is assuming that it looked more like 0. started with barter 1. switched to money 2. lost money 3. switched to barter 4. switched to money when it was available again Given that these societies switched back to money when it was available again, we might have objected, "Since it seems like they prefer money, maybe they started with money?" But basically we were supposed to hear the author's comment that they REVERTED to the ORIGINAL barter system, and be like, "Whoa, author. Where are you getting that idea from? Who said they started out originally as barter? You're just assuming the truth of your conclusion and interpreting what happened in these societies through that lens". Ultimately, be at peace with missing this one since the stimulus is written so poorly, but tell yourself that the best chance you had at getting this right was knowing that the other four were definitively wrong, and that this one, if you look for textual nuances, is at least workable.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   48%