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

[lasinsf]

Thanks for your help, Beth. I appreciate your tips about deciding whether to draw out the conditional reasoning in attacking the problem.

[rameday]

I got this question wrong. My prephrase was that to JTC we have to to solidify the analogy between the markets and money not existing so therefore I chose E. I get why A is correct but I am not entirely sure why solidifying the analogy would be wrong.

Also could you remind me as to for strengthen why we are looking for something that is necessary to prove ( i believe) the conditional statement where as for JTC we are looking for something that is sufficient.

A

[Steve Stein]

Hi A,

In that one, the argument breaks down as follows:

Premise: A universal loss in the belief in money would make it disappear.

Conclusion: Therefore money does not really exist.

The question asks for an assumption that would justify the argument. Answer choice (A) provides that if something really exists, it would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

Steve

[josheli]

How did they arrive at this answer? May some please explain why the correct answer choice (A) is correct? Thanks.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi josheli,

Let's see if I can help bring some clarity. The stimulus conclusion is that money does not exist. To make this point, it tries to show how it is grounded on belief.

This is a justify-the-conclusion question, and answer choice (A) gives a way for the conclusion to follow if added to the given premises. If everything that exists would continue to exist if people stopped believing in it, then we could conclude from the premises that money doesn't exist. The premises are that a universal loss of belief in money is possible, and that this would have profound effects. Answer (A) bridges the gap from the premises to the conclusion by asking one to presuppose that something doesn't exist if no one believes in it--in other words, if it exists, then it is not belief-dependent. We could represent (A) as follows, using "~" to represent negation:

X exists ~belief-dependent phenomenon

contrapositive: belief-dependent phenomenon ~X exists

If this is true, then according to the premises, money doesn't exist.

Hope that helps!

[jonwg5121]

Just wanted to follow up on this because I was having a bit of trouble understanding the explanation.

With regards to the market fluctuations statement, is that the premise for "$ disappears"?

When I did the problem, I was able to get
conclusion: $ does not exist
premise: No belief in $-->$ disappears.

However, when I tried to fit it into the model of
Premise: A
Premise: A-->B
Conclusion:B
I had some trouble.

If the conclusion ($ does not exist) is B, and the premise ($ disappears) is A, and to justify I would need to link A ($ disappears) to B ($ does not exist), what was the point of the other premise, no belief in $-->$ disappears?

Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Just wanted to follow up on this because I was having a bit of trouble understanding the explanation.

With regards to the market fluctuations statement, is that the premise for "$ disappears"?

When I did the problem, I was able to get
conclusion: $ does not exist
premise: No belief in $-->$ disappears.

However, when I tried to fit it into the model of
Premise: A
Premise: A-->B
Conclusion:B
I had some trouble.

If the conclusion ($ does not exist) is B, and the premise ($ disappears) is A, and to justify I would need to link A ($ disappears) to B ($ does not exist), what was the point of the other premise, no belief in $-->$ disappears?

Thanks!

Hello jonwg5121,

The market fluctuations statement can be considered a premise for "$ disappears if there is a lack of belief". You could also say, "$ appears if there is belief", maybe. In any case, money is affected by belief, and goes up and down depending on mere belief.
Another way to diagram answer A might be, "e slash nb", in other words, true existence (of money) does not need belief. The contrapositive would be, "nb slash e", i.e., the need for belief in something shows something does not truly exist. And the market flux above shows that belief affects the existence of money, so there is a need for belief. Ergo, money does not truly exist.

Hope this helps,
David

[jonwg5121]

It does help, but I am having trouble converting answer choice A to a conditional statement. Which one would be considered the sufficient, "if everyone were to stop believing in it" or "anything that exists would continue to exist". Thanks!

[David Boyle]

It does help, but I am having trouble converting answer choice A to a conditional statement. Which one would be considered the sufficient, "if everyone were to stop believing in it" or "anything that exists would continue to exist". Thanks!

Hello jonwg5121,

"Even if" is a strange construction. It can function as an "if", e.g., "I'll eat ice cream even if you tell me not to" could be diagrammed as "tell me not to eat ice cream". However, that leaves many other possible sufficient conditions, such as "tell me TO eat ice cream eat ice cream". So to diagram it as a normal sufficient condition may miss the point.
On that note: saying "If everyone were to stop believing in it anything that exists would continue to exist" (slash b e), could coexist with "If everyone DID believe in it anything that exists would continue to exist" (b e). So, belief is irrelevant for true existence.
Thus, maybe "even if" is a way to say "something really isn't needed". As in, "A chicken clucks even if Donald Trump's toupee is on backward", since Trump's toupee is irrelevant to chicken-clucking. So, as I said previously, in this case, "e slash nb", or, true existence (of money) does not need belief, may be the best way to diagram it, using "existence" as the sufficient, and the necessary being something unnecessary! that is, the need for belief is not necessary.

Hope this helps,
David

[jonwg5121]

That helps a lot. Thanks!