#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.

[cjtoon]

Would it also be fair to say that B is wrong because it implies a causality that isn't in the stimulus?

lounalola, I do not think causality is the issue with B. The gap in the logic of this argument is that while we know many currencies were previously used as decoration, we don't know for a fact that just because an object was previously used as decoration that it will be used as currency. While this isn't a conditional question, we can loosely represent this problematic relationship with the concept of a "mistaken reversal:"

• Premise: some currencies --> were previously used as decoration
• Erroneous conclusion: since beads are decorative --> they will be used as currency

This isn't a causal flaw, but if we have an answer choice suggesting a causal relationship between decoration and currency (in the direction of decorative items --> cause items to be used as currency), then that would actually justify this flawed argument! So B is actually an attractive answer choice.

The reason B is wrong is because it uses the terms "primary" and "secondary." A lot of confusion in this thread results from people thinking these terms are used with their chronological definitions (primary meaning 'first' and secondary meaning 'second/after'). But, primary and secondary have multiple meanings. What if this answer choice used primary and secondary meaning "most important" or "second most important?" The stimulus says absolutely nothing about the most important or second most important uses for these objects. What if beads have a primary use of being used for jewelry, secondary use of being used for decoration/adornment, and tertiary use as currency? That makes this a weak answer choice.

Answer C is NOT a sufficient justification for this argument, vbkehs, but that's putting too much pressure on that answer because this is not a Justify the Conclusion question. It's a Strengthen question, so the answer doesn't have to do that kind of heavy lifting. All it has to do is "most help", as the stem asks us, and C helps more than any other answer.

Adam, I disagree that this is not a Justify the Conclusion question. The answer choices do seem vague and more in line with "Strengthen" question answer choices, but because the specific vocabulary of the question and correct answer (C) match in terms of certainty: both state "many objects have been used ..." and "an object having a certain original use is likely to have ...". This removes the flawed logic from the argument, even if there's a possibility that the two 'somes' do not line up to in fact prove that beads came to be used as currency. Let me know if there is something I'm missing from this, thanks!

[Dana D]

Hey Cjtoon,

The reason this is a strengthen questoin and not a justify the conclusion question (despite using the word justify in the question stem) is because for a justify question, the correct answer MUST be a sufficient assumption that would result in the conclusion. You can think about justify questions as the strongest version of a strengthen question.

If this was a justify the conclusion question, in order for answer choice (C) to be correct, every instance of the conditions in answer (C) occuring would have to result in the conclusion occuring. Here, the fact that the word "likely" is used already indicates that this couldn't be the correct answer for a justify question, because there is a world where an object has a certain original use but not the same derivative use as other objects with the same original use. Thus, answer choice (C) doesn't mandate that beads or other objects used for decoration would later have the derivative use of currency, it only helps strengthen the author's argument as to why this phenomenon occurs.

Be careful about relying on indicators like level of certainty alone, as that can mislead you on certain questions. It's worthwhile really thinking about what types of answer choices are correct for different question types, like strengthen vs. justify, so hopefully this explanation helps!

Best,
Dana