@KevinLin It took me a few more days to finally understand. The editorialist is saying that disappearing with the loss of belief is sufficient to not truly exist. Therefore to truly exist something must continue to exist even in spite of that. Very frustrating question, but I get it now!

@KevinLin Should "does not really exist" be translated as "kind of exists" then? Is "money does not really exist" not the conclusion of the argument? It seems the author is predicating the existence of money itself on the basis that it is universally believed in. He contends that if no one believes in something, it would be sufficient to prove itself not to exist.

I'm not sure what I am reading incorrectly. I can't find any statement from the argument concluding that money really truly does exist.

Unless it's supposed to be interpreted as, the only reason money does exist is because presently people universally believe in it. But then A would fail that condition.

@KevinLin The Editorialists argument is that money would cease to exist if universally everyone stopped believing in it, and therefore it doesn't really exist itself.

A establishes that even if, despite the Editorialists argument, everyone stopped believing in money, money WOULD continue to exist.

A explicitly denies the premises drawn by the argument. In a world where A is true and actually happened, the Editorialist would be incorrect because apparently, money would still exist even without a single person believing such.

If a loss of belief is sufficient to conclude that money doesn't exist, how can it be the case that money exists even if not a single soul believes so?

Is this a trick question to get people to conflate "disappearing" with "nonexistence"?

I don't see how A can be compatible with the argument at all. I score 170+ on the LSAT and have watched the video for this question numerous times. It does not make sense.

How can Sahira's assumption be "implicit" if it is written out explicitly?

This is the most moronic question the LSAT writers have ever come up with. The stimulus explicitly states A is not true. Without belief in money, it would not exist. Therefore it CAN NOT be true that anything that exists would continue to exist without belief. This is entirely the opposite of the author's conclusion. D is the correct contrapositive of the argument. If A is true, the Editorialists argument CAN NOT AND NEVER CAN BE TRUE. It's the opposite of sufficient!