- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 7883
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (A)
The premises state that both money and language are universal. This is the equivalent of saying that both money and language are present in every society. The argument concludes that money was probably invented independently in more than one society, because all societies use money and money is a human invention. It is important to clearly identify this conclusion, as many of the answer choices in this question justify statements other than the conclusion of the argument.
- Premises: Society Money Human Invention
Conclusion: Money was probably invented independently in more than one society.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Note the use of the word some. If some societies were geographically isolated (i.e. independent), and all societies have money, then the geographically isolated societies must have invented money independently. This would justify the conclusion that money was probably invented independently in more than one society.
Answer Choice (B): The conclusion of this argument does not ultimately depend on any facts about language. Money and language might both be universal social conventions, but they are not necessarily identical social conventions. Even if language emerged independently in different societies, money might still have developed in only one society and then spread to all other societies.
Answer Choice (C): This is a Shell Game Answer. Since we know from the stimulus that money is not rooted in an innate ability, this answer choice would prove that money is an invention. However, this fact was already provided in the premises of the argument. The correct answer choice needs to prove that money developed independently in more than one society.
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is also a Shell Game Answer. The utility of money has no bearing on the issue at hand. The contrapositive of this answer choice states that if money were widespread, then it would be useful. Since the premises show that money is widespread, it would logically follow that money is useful. However, the conclusion claimed that money was invented independently by more than one society, not that money is useful.
Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is yet another Shell Game Answer. If the author had concluded that money is universal, then this answer choice might be an assumption of that argument. However, the fact that money is universal was a premise of this argument, not the main conclusion. Once again, this answer choice fails to prove the actual conclusion that money developed independently in more than one society.