Question 8.

Let us inspect the individual statements:

Option A: The author does not make any such claim. The following is stated in this regard: "...Grain, because it rotted easily, was not used nearly as much as coins and textiles...". Thus, the marginal usage of grains is presented relative to that of coins and textiles. Therefore, it cannot be understood that perishable currencies such as grains were not utilised for official work. 

Option B: The author simply states that "...Coins did have certain advantages: they were durable, recognisable and provided a convenient medium of exchange, especially for smaller transactions..." Presenting them as being more valuable than textile currency would be incorrect. 

Option C: This would be imprecise as the author portrays the following: "...Grain, because it rotted easily, was not used nearly as much as coins and textiles, but taxpayers were required to pay grain to the government as a share of their annual tax obligations, and official salaries were expressed in weights of grain..." The statement here deviates from this depiction.

Option D: This statement can be understood from the final paragraph, wherein the author states: "...In actuality, our own currency system today has some similarities even as it is changing in front of our eyes. . . . We have cash - coins for small transactions like paying for parking at a meter, and banknotes for other items; cheques...". Hence, Option D is a valid inference