2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:06 pm
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: kiklavan, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests