Preptest 46, Section 3 (LR), #24 - Tried and Tried can't get Forum

[Nada]

I will post the correct answer after the question and options. The actual right answer I TOTALLY do not get, it completely contradicts her conclusion (which I understood was the first sentence) - I didn't even believe it was a contender!!! None of the other answers sounded so great either, so I guessed!

Editorialist: Despite the importance it seems to have in our lives, money does not really exist. This is evident from the fact that all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it. We witness this phenomenon on a small scale daily in the rises and falls of financial markets, whose fluctuations are often entirely independent of concrete causes and are the results of mere beliefs of investors.

The conclusion of the editorialist's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

a. Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.
b. Only if one can have mistaken beliefs abouta thing does that exist, strictly speaking.
c. In order to exist, an entity must have practical consequences for those who believe in it.
d. If everyone believes in something, the it must exist.
e. Whatever is true of money is true of financial markets generally.



Tje correct answer is A

[awesomepossum]

contrapositive of A is

[remember the contrapositive means if M ---> N is true, then (not) N -----> (not) M is true]


if anything may or may not continue to exist if everybody stopped believing in it then it does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------

this is the key

some parts of this that will help

(not) [would continue to exist if everyone stopped believing in it] = [may or may not continue to exist if everyone stopped believing in it]

not [anything that exists] = [something that does not exist]

[bluedolphins]

I found this one really difficult too. How did you think of this? I mean, taking the contrapositive of an answer?!

[fightin illini 25]

I always have trouble thinking of it in the contrapositive sense; see if thinking of it this way instead helps. In the first sentence it concludes that money does not really exist. The premise for this is all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it.

In order to justify the conclusion above we must know that anything that exists continues to exist even if we stopped believing in it. Why? Because we need to have two distinct categories. In order to claim that something does not exist we need to know that something does exist. Which is what A tells us.

At least thats how I see it...I am not a philosophy major so if I am wrong please correct me

[kurla88]

Editorialist: Despite the importance it seems to have in our lives, money does not really exist. This is evident from the fact that all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it. We witness this phenomenon on a small scale daily in the rises and falls of financial markets, whose fluctuations are often entirely independent of concrete causes and are the results of mere beliefs of investors.

The conclusion of the editorialist's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

a. Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.

This makes sense. Option A is giving you a principle to define the category of things that exist. Put money in place of "anything". If money existed, then it would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it. But according to the author, if everyone stopped believing in money, it would NOT exist. Thus, money does not abide by the principle stated in option A, and so money is not part of the category of things that really exist. A is sufficient to get you to the desired conclusion.

[bobina]

Editorialist: Despite the importance it seems to have in our lives, money does not really exist. This is evident from the fact that all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it. We witness this phenomenon on a small scale daily in the rises and falls of financial markets, whose fluctuations are often entirely independent of concrete causes and are the results of mere beliefs of investors.

The conclusion of the editorialist's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

a. Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.
b. Only if one can have mistaken beliefs abouta thing does that exist, strictly speaking.
c. In order to exist, an entity must have practical consequences for those who believe in it.
d. If everyone believes in something, the it must exist.
e. Whatever is true of money is true of financial markets generally.

Conclusion: Money does not really exist.
Premise: All that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it.
If money exists ---> belief in it.
If no belief--> money does not exist.
According to a)
If no belief--> anything that exists still exists.
or, how I prefer reading it:
If something exists ---> does not depend on the presence or lack thereof of belief.

Hence, money does not really exist since it depends and requires a belief in it.