#24 - Editorialist: Despite the importance it seems to have

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (A)

The editorialist's conclusion is that money does not really exist. His evidence for this conclusion is the observation that money would disappear if no one believed in anymore. The example of money disappearing everyday because of fluctuations of financial markets establishes that money can indeed disappear:

• Premise: No Belief in $ → $ Disappears
  
  (Loss of belief in money is sufficient to make it disappear)
  
  Premise: $ Disappears
  
  Conclusion: $ Does Not Exist
  
  (Money does not really exist)

To justify this conclusion, you need to connect the premises to the conclusion:

• Justify Formula: $ Disappears → $ Does Not Exist

Alternatively, you can look for the logical equivalent of this statement, i.e. that if money existed, then it would never disappear. This inference most closely matches the statement given in answer choice (A), which is the correct answer.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above. This is the contrapositive of the conditional chain needed to establish the conclusion. Do not be misled by the extreme language of the answer: this is a common feature of correct answers in Justify the Conclusion questions, as their goal is to definitively prove the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): Having mistaken beliefs about a thing is not a necessary condition required by the conclusion of this argument. In fact, the author never mentions mistaken beliefs about money. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): While the author mentions the importance of money in our lives, it is unclear why practical consequences would be required for its existence, or how such a requirement would justify the conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is a Mistaken Reversal of the conditional reasoning upon which the argument depends. Existence requires belief, not the other way around. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is easy to eliminate quickly as it fails to address either of the critical elements from the stimulus that are needed to justify the conclusion.

[legalrabbit]

Hi I'm having a really hard time diagramming this and would appreciate some help/guidance.

The correct answer is A but I'm not sure how to diagram "even if" since it seems like a sufficient term but it doesn't makes sense with what I wrote down....

[Nikki Siclunov]

The editorialist’s conclusion is that money does not really exist. His evidence for this conclusion is the observation that money would disappear if no one believed in anymore. The example of money disappearing everyday because of fluctuations of financial markets establishes that money can indeed disappear:

Premise: No Belief in $ ⇒ $ Disappears
(i.e. loss of belief in money is sufficient to make it disappear)

Premise: $ Disappears

Conclusion: $ Does Not Exist

To justify this conclusion, you need to connect the premises to the conclusion:

Justify Formula: $ Disappears ⇒ $ Does Not Exist

Alternatively, you can look for the logical equivalent of this statement, i.e. that if money existed, then it would never disappear. This inference most closely matches the statement given in answer choice (A), which is the correct answer.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. See discussion above. This is the contrapositive of the conditional chain needed to establish the conclusion. Do not be misled by the extreme language of the answer: this is a common feature of correct answers in Justify the Conclusion questions, as their goal is to definitively prove the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): Having mistaken beliefs about a thing is not a necessary condition required by the conclusion of this argument. In fact, the author never mentions mistaken beliefs about money.

Answer choice (C): While the author mentions the importance of money in our lives, it is unclear why practical consequences would be required for its existence, or how such a requirement would justify the conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This is a Mistaken Reversal of the conditional reasoning upon which the argument depends. Existence requires belief, not the other way around.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is easy to eliminate quickly as it fails to address either of the critical elements from the stimulus that are needed to justify the conclusion.

Hope this helps!

[legalrabbit]

Wow, Nikki, thank you for the very thorough explanation!! I was having a hard time understanding the market fluctuations part but you cleared it up for me.

[Yasmeencheetah]

Hi there
I have a question about lesson four in the virtual class 3 months prep
Lesson 4 page 77 homework. The question about money does not exist if people do not believe in it.

I really have a hard time understanding how answer choice as is correct
If people stop believing money no longer exists theoretically
Also the explanation states this answer choice is the Contrapositive of the conditional chain. I do not see that.

Pleassseeeee break it down for me in terms of the diagram of the correct answer choice under the diagram of the conditional chain so i can see what I am missing.

Thank you.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question--that's a tough one, so let's simplify the argument a bit:

Premise: If everyone stopped believing in money, it would cease to exist.
Conclusion: Money does not really exist.

This represents a bit of a leap; we need to somehow justify this conclusion.

In other words, we need to find the answer choice that confirms the author's assertion--that if something would disappear from a universal loss of belief, then it does not really exist.

Answer choice A provides that if things really exist, it would continue to exist despite a universal loss of belief. This can be diagrammed as follows:
really exist Continue to exist even if loss of belief

...and the contrapositive of this diagram confirms answer choice A to be correct:

NOT continue to exist when loss of belief NOT really exist.

The conditional rule above justifies the author's conclusion that money does not really exist.

Tricky one! let me know whether this clears it up--thanks!

~Steve

[Nadia0702]

Hi Steve,
I'd like to jump in here with an additional question. The statement "...all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it" really threw me off. Isn't this saying that what is needed i.e. the necessary condition is "the universal loss of belief in it"? I diagrammed it as follows because interpreted the sentence as saying that I needed (it's necessary!) the loss of belief in it.
Money disappear Loss of belief it it

I know my above diagram is wrong, but I want to get a better grasp of how I'm looking at this in the wrong way and how to avoid it in the future. Indicator words? Other things that should be jumping out at me?

Thanks!
Nadia

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Nadia,

The wording is definitely a bit tricky! In this scenario, it's best to think through the logic of the statement rather than relying solely on the indicator words. When the author says "all that would be needed to make money disappear is a loss of belief in it" he's basically saying that a loss of belief is sufficient to make money disappear. Try rewording the sentence in an if/then statement to see what really makes more sense for what the author is saying. Is he saying that if money disappears, then we must have lost belief in it? Or is he saying that if we lose belief in money, it will disappear? The second if/then relationship matches his statement better.

Indicator words can be very helpful, but sometimes you'll need to just think through the logical relationship the author gives you.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[lasinsf]

I'm confused about the correct answer choice for this question, in spite of the fact that I was able to get the justify formula statement linking the premises and conclusion:

Premise: Loss of belief in $ --> Make $ disappear
Contrapositive: Cannot make $ disappear --> Belief in $

Conclusion: $ not exist

Justify: Exist --> Cannot make disappear
Contrapositive: Make disappear --> not exist

Linking the pieces together: Loss of belief in $ --> make $ disappear --> $ not exist

Correct answer choice A states: "Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it."

When I take the whole inference chain, I get:
Loss of belief --> make disappear --> not exist
Contrapositive: exist --> cannot make disappear --> belief

Doesn't this last contrapositive statement mean that belief is required for something to exist? This contradicts the answer choice, which states that belief is not required for something to exist.

Please clarify. Thanks!

[BethRibet]

Hi Lasinsf,

Thanks for the question.
It's at least a slightly complex logical relationship (not that that's atypical for the LSAT), so it's easy to get a bit turned around.

It's likely less helpful to analyze this stimulus as a chain, though there is a sequence of events being described.

I would phrase the conditional relationship, which is also the assumption, more like this:

If a loss of belief in something can make it disappear, then it does not exist.
or LBMD --> ~E

The contrapositive then is that if something exists, then a loss of belief in that thing can not make it disappear.
or E --> ~LBMD

However the crucial task in this question is to identify the assumption that isn't explicitly stated in the stimulus. What we know is that: A loss of belief in money can make it disappear. We are presented with the conclusion that money does not exist. The assumption, basically the bridge needed from the premise to the conclusion, then follows pretty neatly as stated in answer choice A.

One thing to stay mindful of is that while you may see conditional language in many stimuli, sometimes the skill you will most need in order to respond to the question or locate the right answer choice is not conditional reasoning. What cues me in this question to the fact that I want to be spotting a "supporter assumption" -- meaning an assumption that fills in missing information needed to link a premise to a conclusion -- is that there is this new concept, "exists", which shows up in the conclusion, and doesn't completely automatically flow from the rest of the information presented. For instance, something could disappear, and that wouldn't automatically tell me that it never exists, or doesn't exist for some time. We have to assume something about the relationship of being capable of disappearing, and existing, in order to justify this conclusion. Without getting into a broader philosophical discussion, if you or I disappeared for instance, in the real world, that hopefully doesn't mean we didn't ever exist. The trick here is to notice that the term "exists" does really need a bit more support or definition than just whether or not it can disappear.

In knowing whether to spend time charting out conditional relationships, it helps to take a close look at both the question stem and answer choices. Notice for instance that this question stem is not asking you to draw an inference that follows from the logic of the stimulus, which often suggests that you're looking for a sufficient and necessary relationship. Instead it asks for an assumption which is actually missing. Though occasionally you do get questions which simultaneously require conditional logic and spotting an assumption, it's not a foregone conclusion that you would be using both skills together, or that you would need conditional reasoning in order to locate an assumption.

Hope this helps!
Beth