Indeed. The conclusion is contained in the initial assumptions and is revealed through correct discursive reasoning. Austrian economists believe that humans, for whatever reason, posses logical minds and that this logic is universal. They do not believe that individuals, at birth, already understand concepts such as money, real numbers, ect.
The objection to Austrian economics is that it is merely tautological and is therefore superfluous; it cannot produce or yield knowledge. But this position assumes that scientific inquiry actually creates facts. I reject this position. The facts exist whether we understand them or not; the real world is given, and we may employ our reasoning abilities in order to interpret the data and understand real-world phenomena. Without reason empirical data is chaotic and ultimately useless. Austrians do no reject empirical data. This subject is actually very complicated and there are a lot of technical concepts/distinctions (such as analytical a priori and synthetic a priori, the methods employed for natural sciences vs the methods employed in social sciences, ect). But those who flatly reject a priori reasoning simply don’t know what they are talking about–they’re essentially mystics.
I’m not an expert in philosophy. This is just the way I understand it. Talk to lilburne, he has a real mastery of the subject.