Question 2005-06-c-24

gxgx

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 about a thing does that thing 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, then that thing exists.

e. Whatever is true of money is true of financail markets generally.

Answer (a), I chose (e). Why ?

kingme

not b, contridicts passage
not c, contridicts passage
not d, irrelavant
not e, irrelavant (could be correct if backward: financial market->money)

a works:
Definition:
Let e be an element in the set that exists (E)
Let s be an element in the set that people stop believing (S)
Let c be an element in something that continues to exist after people stop believing (C)
(Note: C is a subset of S, but it's not important)

Premise from definition:
* forall e in E

Premise from choice a:
* forall e in S is in C

Given in 2nd sentence of passage:
Let m (money)
* m in S implies m not in C

=>
* forall e, m=/=e
=>
* m not in E
which is the argument in the 1st sentence: "money does not really exist"

gxgx

Kingme,

You confused me even worse, would you explain it in a mundane way? Sorry for my slow understanding.

kingme

This question is fairly strict in form and logic. You should read and understand every word/phrase/idea. Please let me know what you don't understand then I can help you further.

gxgx

Ok, I read as follow:

1. Conclusion:  "Despite the importance it seems to have in our lives, money does not really exist."

I read as " money actually does not exist, its importance generates people believes only."

2. evidence:  "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. "

I read " if there is a universal believe that money doesn't exist, then the money disappear"

3. further evidence to the 2nd evidence: "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."

I read as " In financial markets, its fluctuations are depended on investors beliefs, not related to the conrete cause"

So, my bridge is " believe makes money in and out", which looks like an opposite to the answer (a).

Thanks a bunch!

.

kingme

#3 is irrelevant to choice 'a'.

given: Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it
given: if there is a universal believe that money doesn't exist, then the money disappear
=> money actually does not exist (its importance generates people believes only is irrelevant)

This makes sense although it's not very strict when put into words. This is a strict logic question (you can prove it as in first reply). But there's no need if you've used elimination already. There's no reason to get it wrong unless you don't understand it. Good luck!

gxgx

OMG,

Finally figure out, after reading back of your 1st reply.

Buy your lunch.

 

kingme

I'll remember that...

Good Luck!