Critical Reasoning

gmatnmein2010 wrote: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?

Conclusion - Money does not really exist, despite its importance in our lives
Premise 1 - all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it
Premise 2 - Stock mkt fluctuations are often entirely independent of concrete causes and are the result of mere beliefs of investors.

A) Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.
Incorrect : This is opposite of what is stated in the argument. "all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it"

B) Only if one can have mistaken beliefs about a thing does that thing exist, strictly speaking.
Incorrect : Issue is not about MISTAKEN beliefs but LOSS of belief

C) In order to exist, an entity must have practical consequences for those who believe in it.
Incorrect : Practical consequences is clearly out of scope

D) If everyone believes in something, then that thing exists.
Correct : This can be implied from premise 1 which states that all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it. So it is assumed that if EVERYONE does not believe in something it will not exists and if EVERYONE believes in something, IT EXISTS.

E) Whatever is true of money is true of financial markets generally.
Incorrect : This cannot be assumed from the conclusion above.