 There is a more straightforward defence of Transitivity in preference; a defence that hinges on the sure losses that may befall anyone who violates the axiom. This is the so-called money pump argument (see Davidson et. al. 1955 for an early argument of this sort, but for recent discussion and revision of this argument, see Gustafsson 2010 &amp; 2013). It is based on the assumption that if you find \(X\) at least as desirable as \(Y\), then you should be happy to trade the latter for the former. Suppose you violate Transitivity; for you: \(A\preceq B\), \(B\preceq C\) but \(C\prec A\). Moreover, suppose you presently have \(A\). Then you should be willing to trade \(A\) for \(B\). The same goes for \(B\) and \(C\): you should be willing to trade \(B\) for \(C\). You strictly prefer \(A\) to \(C\), so you should be willing to trade in \(C\) plus some sum \(\$x\) for \(A\). But now you are in the same situation as you started, having \(A\) and neither \(B\) nor \(C\), except that you have lost \(\$x\)! So in a few steps, each of which was consistent with your preferences, you find yourself in a situation that is clearly worse, by your own lights, than your original situation. The picture is made more dramatic if we imagine that the process could be repeated, turning you into a “money pump”. Hence, the argument goes, there is something (instrumentally) irrational about your intransitive preferences. If your preferences were transitive, then you would not be vulnerable to choosing a dominated option and serving as a money pump. Therefore, your preferences should be transitive.