Delete

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
User avatar
cwkenneth

New
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:00 pm

Delete

Postby cwkenneth » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:15 pm

Delete
Last edited by cwkenneth on Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bluejayk

Bronze
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:06 pm

Re: Question Help: Preptest 46 (June 2005) Section 3 / Q# 24

Postby bluejayk » Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:13 pm

cwkenneth wrote:
The conclusion can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

Answer = A) anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.

Can someone explain how this is the answer... I cant seem to see the logic here?

Thanks for the help!


If (A) is true, then all things that exist do so whether or not people believe in them. However, the stimulus states that if there was no longer a universal belief in money, then money would no longer exist. So money must not be one of the things that really exist, since its existence is contingent on people believing in it.

It's a weird argument, keep in mind what you're looking for in the answer choice, an extra premise that if added makes the conclusion valid.


Last bumped by cwkenneth on Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:13 pm.



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: formosalimered and 13 guests