Come on man, what kinnda question is this m thrown off the track, none of the options even stays close to be a contender. Hope these kinnda questions stays out of the GMAT league.
Amen..!!

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 result 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 financial markets generally.


I came down to the options B and E. Cancelled out B as the stimulus does not talk about mistaken beliefs or the editorialist does not talk about the categories of the beliefs. It just talks about beliefs.

Please GMATKISS give the OA...

IMO A.

Finally , could arrive at something. It was a tough time no doubts. What is the source??

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 result 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.
--> only this remains after POE.

B) Only if one can have mistaken beliefs about a thing does that thing exist, strictly speaking.
--> out of scope

C) In order to exist, an entity must have practical consequences for those who believe in it.
--> out of scope

D) If everyone believes in something, then that thing exists.

-->
belief-->existence
in argument it is "to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it. "
i.e. no belief --> no existence
so it is existence--> belief
i.e. if this is assumed then argument stands. so D wouldnot be.

E) Whatever is true of money is true of financial markets generally.
--> "generally" makes the conclusion doubtful

IMO A.

I agree with killer1387's explanation for eliminating D.

Definitely not a GMAT question. Seems to be purely based on logic. Is it an LSAT question ? I have seen these sort of questions in LSAT prep materials, but it didn't really help with GMAT prep in fact it was detrimental. GMAT questions are purely intuition based and more real life scenarios, whereas LSAT questions are pure logic. You get to train yourself in the wrong way i would say. The more tougher the GMAT questions are the more closer two options are among them is the right answer and there is no way you can get to crack those questions practicing LSAT questions, which are logic based.