Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 3 · Question 24

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
If everyone stops believing in money, it'll disappear, so money doesn't exist.

Answer Anticipation:
Wrap your head around that one!

This is one of those arguments that deals in such abstract and philosophical content that it can be hard to wrap our heads around it. But if we use our skills to break the argument down and work through the logic, we can make it through.

First, we need to identify the conclusion. A "Despite. . . " sentence will generally introduce an opposing point or a contradictory fact before stating the conclusion, and here, the pivot in the sentence makes a claim that begs for an explanation—money doesn't really exist. The following sentence starts with, "This is evident from the fact. . . " which introduces a premise supporting the preceding sentence, establishing it as the conclusion. The argument then brings up examples of that premise, which support it but aren't relevant to its connection to the main point.

So we can simplify this argument quite a bit:
If everyone stops believing in money, it'll disappear
Therefore, money doesn't exist

But is the fact that it'll disappear if everyone stops believing in it enough to prove that it doesn't exist? That's a principle that isn't established by the argument, and so the correct answer will connect these ideas:
Something that disappears when people stop believing in it doesn't really exist

Answer Explanation:
This answer is a bit complex, but let's rephrase it—Anything that exists won't stop existing just because people stop believing in it. Or, something of a contrapositive—Anything that stops existing when people stop believing in it doesn't really exist. That's a direct connection between the premise and the main point of the argument, so this is the correct answer. (And don't worry if your head's a bit turned around on this! You can still get the answer right by focusing on connecting the terms in the argument instead of worrying too much about the philosophical ramifications of it.)

Key Takeaway:
For the more abstract Strengthen with Sufficient/Necessary Premise questions, focus on breaking down the argument, tracing the key terms and logic through the premise(s) and conclusion, and then finding an answer that connects these ideas.

Incorrect. This answer is about mistaken beliefs, not beliefs, so it doesn't tie directly into the premise.

Incorrect. Money does have practical consequences for those who believe in it, so this answer establishes that it just might exist since it meets a necessary condition for existing.

Incorrect. The conclusion is that money exists, so this answer establishing a sufficient condition for money existing is a negation of the assumption.

Incorrect. This answer ties the example more directly into the premise that it's illustrating, but that doesn't then connect that premise to the conclusion, so this answer is incorrect.