#22 - Although human economic exchange predates historical

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Steph,

The author here doesn't make a causal claim---the author isn't claiming barter caused money or money caused bartering. They were just two events that occurred (events whose order is unproven by the argument). It would be like saying that I Love Lucy occurred before George Bush was elected president. Sure, that's true, but it's not a causal claim just because it's a time based claim. Similarly here, we have a claim about the order of events, but no claim about any causal relationship between those two events.

Hope that helps!

[April30Gang]

Hello,

I have a question about D. Would it have been correct if the author said.

The argument infers one event occurred before the other based on the fact of a mere correlation?

[Beth Hayden]

Hi April,

You are right that the author assumes that bartering must have come before currency just because of the correlation they stated. I don't think you are likely to see an answer choice like that because it's a bit vague--answer choice (D) more directly targets the issues of causation/correlation--but it's absolutely a flaw in the reasoning.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[lsatquestions]

I selected B because I thought that "currency largely disappeared from the local economy" contradicted "reverting back to the original barter system." I took the first premise to mean that currency existed originally then disappeared and the second to mean the barter system was the original system. Can you please explain the error I made in my reasoning?

[Adam Tyson]

You're assuming that currency disappearing from an economy can only happen if the currency was always there. But you shouldn't make any assumptions about the stimulus! The author is saying that first there was barter, and then money, and then, in some cases, money goes away and barter returns. There's no contradiction in those ideas! The problem is that the author is assuming that barter came first, and using that as evidence that barter came first. A rare case of circular reasoning!

Contradictory premises - aka an Internal Contradiction - occurs only when two claims made by the author are mutually exclusive, which means it is impossible for them both to be true. Those are very rare on the LSAT, as are Circular arguments. Here, one super rare flaw type appeared in the stimulus, and they tossed in a different super rare one as a trap answer.