#17 - Beads were used as currency for centuries. But why

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lounalola,

I wouldn't eliminate Answer B for that reason. While causal reasoning isn't explicitly mentioned in the stimulus, it seems to be implied. The argument attempts to answer why beads have been used for currency for centuries. In providing an explanation for why this happened (the fact that beads were first used as objects of adornment), the argument is suggesting that this fact (the beads perceived "value" as objects of adornment) was at least partly responsible for (causing) the beads to be used as currency.

Many causal arguments in logical reasoning take the form of explaining why something (such as a phenomenon or puzzling fact) happened. Often the causal reasoning in these arguments is implied rather than stated outright.

As Dave discussed in his earlier post, the main problem with Answer B has to do with the idea of "causing the secondary use of one to be transferred to the other."

[Moshe613]

Something I haven't seen others point out:
AC B does point to causality which is stronger than the stimulus but it is weak in its confidence level. It says it "can" lead to etc.
AC C on the other hand says it is "likely" - this is more confident than "can".

And since the stimulus never claimed that there is any causality, the fact that causality exists in AC B is of no use.

[Moshe613]

> AC B does point to causality which is stronger than the stimulus but it is
> weak in its confidence level. It says it "can" lead to etc.
> AC C on the other hand says it is "likely" - this is more
> confident than "can".
>
> And since the stimulus never claimed that there is any causality, the fact
> that causality exists in AC B is of no use.


Just to clarify:
The stimulus argues that beads, initially valued for adornment, became currency, similar to how other decorative items like gold and silver did.

Answer B uses "can," suggesting a "possibility" of causality, while option C uses "likely," which indicates a higher degree of probability.

Here's why that distinction is important: The stimulus itself implies a certain naturalness or probability in the transition of beads to currency. It doesn't definitively state a causal relationship, just that it's a natural progression based on their initial value.

So, even though option B introduces a stronger concept (causality), the fact that it uses the less confident "can" makes it a weaker match for the stimulus's implied confidence. Option C's "likely" aligns better with the idea of a probable or natural development, as presented in the original text.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Moshe,

I agree with your assessment of "can" and "likely" in Answers B and C and definitely agree that these are important words to pick up on when comparing answers. All other things being equal, the stronger answer is better in Strengthen questions (like this one) as well as Justify questions. And "likely" does match better with the stimulus.

However, the difference in levels of probability/certainly is not the only difference between these two answers. They are actually expressing slightly different ideas, and the idea of the secondary use of one object "to be transferred to the other" mentioned in Answer B is not quite right, as Dave discusses in his earlier post.

There is often more than one reason why a given answer is incorrect, but it only takes one good reason to rule it out.