Q17 - Beads were used as currency

[smiller]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premise: Many objects that have been used as currency were first used mainly for decoration.
Premise: Beads were originally used for decoration.
Conclusion: It is natural that beads were used as currency.

Answer Anticipation:
There are a couple of problems with this argument. First, we're told something about "many" objects, but how many is "many?" Is this a small percentage of objects used as currency, or a large percentage? In everyday language we often use "many" to mean a relatively large number, but it's a vague term.

Second, the argument relies to some extent on reversed logic. Even if "many" means a large percentage, if many objects that have been used as currency were first used as decorative objects, does the reverse have to be true? Does an object's use as decoration guarantee that it will be used as currency? Many people consider a deer head mounted on a wall to be a decorative object. Have you ever seen someone trying to buy groceries with one? (If you have, send me a message. I want to come hang out in your town some day, just for fun).

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Reversal: Lets break this down. What secondary uses are we talking about? That's currency, I guess. What is the primary use? Decoration? So, this answer choice suggests that, because beads and gold were similarly used as currency, that caused one being used as decoration to lead to the other being used as decoration. This doesn't strengthen our argument. We have evidence that beads were used as decoration, and are trying to conclude from this evidence that they were used as currency.

(B) Too weak: This is better than choice (A). Choice (B) is suggesting that gold and beads being used as decoration might have caused the secondary use of one—currency—to be transferred to the other. But stating that this "can" happen isn't overly convincing. Let's keep our eyes open for a stronger answer.

(C) Correct. This tells us that an object used as decoration is likely to have the same derivative use—currency—as other objects used for decoration. Stating that something is likely provides more support than stating that it "can" happen.

(D) Out of Scope: We don't know if anything ceased to have its original use.

(E) Unhelpful comparison: Choice (E) could strengthen the argument if we could interpret it to mean, "the more an object is used for decoration, the more likely it is to valued as currency." To do this, we need to treat using an object for decoration as equivalent to using it "to represent value in general." That's a big stretch.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Principles tend to be stated in broad terms. To evaluate answers, we need to connect those broad terms to the actual language in the argument.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

I got the correct answer because it seemed to match but I am not quite sure what the conclusion is concluding :

Is it concluding :
1) It was only natural that beads became currency (since beads used to be a decoration and decorations tend to become currency) ---> i.e. we are explaining why the rationale of becoming a currency makes sense

or

2) Beads became to be used as a currency (since any decorations tends to become a currency ) -->i.e. we did not, unlike above, take it for granted that beads were used as currency but we are arguing it did become use as currency

It seems like the first and last sentence of this stimulus makes it confusing what the argument was really trying to argue; however, process of elimination eliminated everything but B and C for me and C seemed to provide a stronger bridge between terms I sensed was related to the arguments and "transfered" in B seemed out of scope so i discounted "B" for it too to still arrive at the credited response

[smiller]

I got the correct answer because it seemed to match but I am not quite sure what the conclusion is concluding

The word "thus" in the final sentence indicates that what follows is a conclusion. In this case, the final sentence contains both the conclusion and an additional premise. "It is natural that beads also came to be used as currency," is the conclusion of the argument. The fact that beads were initially valued as adornments is a premise. This connects with the earlier premise to support the conclusion that using beads as currency is "natural"—in other words, it's something we should expect to happen.

The very first sentence, stating that beads have been used as currency for centuries, seems factual, and there isn't much to indicate that it's meant to be viewed as a conclusion. However, the word "thus" in the final sentence is mostly what should steer us toward looking there for the conclusion.

[ShiyuF391]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premise: Many objects that have been used as currency were first used mainly for decoration.
Premise: Beads were originally used for decoration.
Conclusion: It is natural that beads were used as currency.

Answer Anticipation:
There are a couple of problems with this argument. First, we're told something about "many" objects, but how many is "many?" Is this a small percentage of objects used as currency, or a large percentage? In everyday language we often use "many" to mean a relatively large number, but it's a vague term.

Second, the argument relies to some extent on reversed logic. Even if "many" means a large percentage, if many objects that have been used as currency were first used as decorative objects, does the reverse have to be true? Does an object's use as decoration guarantee that it will be used as currency? Many people consider a deer head mounted on a wall to be a decorative object. Have you ever seen someone trying to buy groceries with one? (If you have, send me a message. I want to come hang out in your town some day, just for fun).

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Reversal: Lets break this down. What secondary uses are we talking about? That's currency, I guess. What is the primary use? Decoration? So, this answer choice suggests that, because beads and gold were similarly used as currency, that caused one being used as decoration to lead to the other being used as decoration. This doesn't strengthen our argument. We have evidence that beads were used as decoration, and are trying to conclude from this evidence that they were used as currency.

(B) Too weak: This is better than choice (A). Choice (B) is suggesting that gold and beads being used as decoration might have caused the secondary use of one—currency—to be transferred to the other. But stating that this "can" happen isn't overly convincing. Let's keep our eyes open for a stronger answer.

(C) Correct. This tells us that an object used as decoration is likely to have the same derivative use—currency—as other objects used for decoration. Stating that something is likely provides more support than stating that it "can" happen.

(D) Out of Scope: We don't know if anything ceased to have its original use.

(E) Unhelpful comparison: Choice (E) could strengthen the argument if we could interpret it to mean, "the more an object is used for decoration, the more likely it is to valued as currency." To do this, we need to treat using an object for decoration as equivalent to using it "to represent value in general." That's a big stretch.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Principles tend to be stated in broad terms. To evaluate answers, we need to connect those broad terms to the actual language in the argument.

#officialexplanation

I believe the word "transfer" is another flaw in answer B, since nowhere in the stimulus has mentioned this idea.

[abrenza123]

Do they mean "it is natural" almost as "inevitable"? because if one interprets that as "reasonable given the circumstances" then B would be much more appealing...

I didn't eliminate B based off of strength because I thought the meaning of the above phrase was ambiguous. I thought the use of transfer was imperfect. the stimulus didn't specify that beads got their secondary/derivative use as currency from another item that was first used as adornment and then later used as currency. B COULD work, I just thought that C was a better fit/covered more bases, so to speak.

Is strength of C the main reason why it is better than B, or is there another reason as well??

[ohthatpatrick]

"It is natural that" = "it is to be expected that / it is normal that"

Saying that a certain thing "can happen" isn't as strong as "we expect it to happen / it's normal for it to happen".

Meanwhile, saying that something is "likely to happen" is a better match for saying "it's the natural, normal, expected occurrence".

But I agree with you that the causal wording of "can cause the second one to be transferred" sounds like too direct of a connection.

The similarity doesn't cause the secondary use to transfer over.
The similarity causes us to be unsurprised if the secondary use is also the same.