It helped me to think of this question this way:

Argument: Money does not really exist because it relies entirely on belief — if belief disappeared, so would money.

Choice A: "Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it."

-This supports the argument. If real things keep existing regardless of belief, but money would stop existing without belief, then money must not be real. That fits the editorialist's conclusion.

Choice D: (what I originally had put): "If everyone believes in something, then that thing exists."

-This goes in the opposite direction. It suggests belief creates existence, which would actually imply money does exist because people believe in it. That contradicts the editorialist's point.

So:

• A = supports the authors conclusion that money is not real

• D = suggests belief makes things real (which would imply money isn't real), therefore contradicting the authors argument

If Im getting the correct answers in under timing should I still prioritize separating parts of the Stim into logic? I watched the video of the problem but it just made me confused. I can find the right answers on these types of problems but just have a hard time mapping it out to justify.

missed that this was an except question

So when I encounter correlation, the common hypotheses should be running through my head before reading AC's?

Would B be correct if it had said :“If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, McGuinness will be appointed,”?

thanks