One of the most useful social conventions is money

Question

One of the most useful social conventions is money, whose universality across societies is matched only by language. Unlike language, which is rooted in an innate ability, money is an artificial, human invention. Hence, it seems probable that the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society. 
The argument’s conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Some societies have been geographically isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society.

(B) Language emerged independently in different societies at different times in human history.

(C) Universal features of human society that are not inventions are rooted in innate abilities.

(D) If money were not useful, it would not be so widespread.

(E) No human society that adopted the convention of money has since abandoned it.

Source: LSAT

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

If you can make this argument make sense, then you’ve already answered the question. The key facts are “money is universal across societies” and “money is not rooted in an innate ability, but is instead an artificial, human invention.” The desired conclusion is, “The invention of money probably occurred independently in more than one society.” We’re asked to find a sufficient assumption of the argument, which means “bridge the gap,” or “prove the conclusion to be true.”

One way to bridge the gap from facts to conclusion is, “Anything that is universal across societies but is not innate was probably invented independently in more than one society.” Another, equally good, answer would be, “Anything that is universal across societies but is an artificial human invention was probably invented independently in more than one society.”

A) Yep. All societies have money. If there are some (one or more) societies that have never been influenced by any other society then they must have invented money independently. If they are so geographically isolated, it “seems probable” that they didn't influence other societies either. In that case, it “seems probable that the invention of money occured independently in more than one society."

B) Nah, this answer definitely wouldn’t prove anything about mone oney. Language is innate, which is  unlike  money.

C) I don’t think this would do it. Just because money is an invention doesn’t prove that it was independently invented more than once. Couldn’t money have been invented once, by the Babylonians let’s say, and then all other human cultures stole the idea? I don’t think this answer proves our conclusion.

D) Whether or not money is useful is simply not the issue here. Terrible answer.

E) This is also a terrible answer, because it doesn’t even attempt to address whether or not money was independently invented.

Our answer is A.

sananoor · Answer

In order to make conclusion valid, what writer has assumed
Conclusion is "invention of money occurred independently in more than one society"

Dkingdom · Answer

I will go with answer A.

That is the only choice that provides an extra premise that is essential for the conclusion to be definitive. Moreover negating it hurts the conclusion.

egmat · Answer

The correct answer is option A.

Approach: 
1. Identify the conclusion
2. Frame the falsification question (under what condition is the conclusion not true? - this will help us find those assumptions made by the author in making the claim)
3. Identify Falsification Conditions (i.e conditions under which the conclusion does not hold true/will break)
4. Framing assumptions (by negating the above conditions - identifying the conditions under which a conclusion will break helps us to identify the assumptions the author has made to ensure the conclusion does not break).

Passage Analysis 
- Money is one of the most useful social conventions
- Along with Language, it is the most universal of all conventions. i.e.  it is present in all societies 
- Unlike language, which is rooted in an innate ability (i.e. language evolved naturally), money is an artificial invention made by human beings
-  Conclusion:  it seems probable that the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society

Question Stem 
Find the assumption

Pre-Thinking 
 Conclusion:  The invention of money probably occurred independently in more than one society
 Falsification Question:  In what scenario would the invention of money probably not have occurred independently in more than one society?
Given that:
1. Money and language are universal social conventions
2. While language is innately developed, money is a human invention
 Falsification Condition:  What if the societies are interconnected, so the invention of money in one society led to it being adopted in all other societies? In such a case, definitely, we cannot say that the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society. It may have occurred in one society, and the other societies adopted the invention. Hence, this condition will definitely break the conclusion
 Assumption:  Some (at least one) societies have been isolated (not connected) such that they cannot adopt/be influenced by conventions in other societies

Option Choice Analysis

(A) Some societies have been geographically isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society. 
Exactly what we arrived at. Correct answer. You can verify this by negating the assumption. 
Negation: No society is isolated enough to not have been influenced by any other society. This means that money could have been invented in some society and be adopted by other societies. This will definitely break the conclusion that invention of money occurred independently in more than one society. 
The negated assumption breaks the conclusion. Hence, it is the correct answer.

(B) Language emerged independently in different societies at different times in human history. 
The conclusion is specific to whether money emerged independently. Language emerging independently or not has no impact on this conclusion.

(C) Universal features of human society that are not inventions are rooted in innate abilities. 
So what? this only tells us that features that are not inventions are rooted in innate abilities (example: language). But our conclusion is about money (which is an invention - nor rooted in innate ability). This option has no actual impact on our conclusion, which is about money. Other features of society are not relevant.

(D) If money were not useful, it would not be so widespread. 
This does not mean in any way that money was invented independently in more than one society. Money could have spread to all societies from one society, because its very useful, or money could have evolved independently in multiple societies, because each of these societies understood the usefulness of money and invented them independently. Both cases are possible. Hence this cannot be the correct assumption.

(E) No human society that adopted the convention of money has since abandoned it. 
Irrelevant to the argument here.

Hope this helps.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER PREP

The premises state that both money and language are universal. This is the equivalent of saying that both money and language are present in every society. The argument concludes that money was probably invented independently in more than one society, because all societies use money and money is a human invention. It is important to clearly identify this conclusion, as many of the answer choices in this question justify statements  other than  the conclusion of the argument.

Premises: Society --> Money --> Human Invention

Conclusion: Money was probably invented independently in more than one society.

The other key to this question is to focus on the logical gap in the argument. Although money is used by all societies, that does not automatically prove it was invented independently in more than one society. It is possible that money was invented independently by  just one  society and then spread from that society to all other societies. In that case, money would not have been invented independently in more than one society. However, if an answer choice can somehow demonstrate that several societies were completely independent from the rest, this would prove that money was invented independently in more than one society.

Answer Choice (A):  This is the correct answer choice. Note the use of the word  some . If  some  societies were geographically isolated (i.e. independent), and  all  societies have money, then the geographically isolated societies must have invented money independently. This would justify the conclusion that money was probably invented independently in  more than one  society.

Answer Choice (B): The conclusion of this argument does not ultimately depend on any facts about language. Money and language might both be  universal  social conventions, but they are not necessarily  identical  social conventions. Even if language emerged independently in different societies, money might still have developed in only one society and then spread to all other societies.

Answer Choice (C): This is a Shell Game Answer. Since we know from the stimulus that money is not rooted in an innate ability, this answer choice would prove that money is an invention. However, this fact was already provided in the premises of the argument. The correct answer choice needs to prove that money developed independently in more than one society.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is also a Shell Game Answer. The utility of money has no bearing on the issue at hand. The contrapositive of this answer choice states that if money were widespread, then it would be useful. Since the premises show that money is widespread, it would logically follow that money is useful. However, the conclusion claimed that money was invented independently by more than one society, not that money is useful.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is yet another Shell Game Answer. If the author had concluded that money is universal, then this answer choice might be an assumption of that argument. However, the fact that money is universal was a premise of this argument, not the main conclusion. Once again, this answer choice fails to prove the actual conclusion that money developed independently in more than one society.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

One of the most useful social conventions is money

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

One of the most useful social conventions is money

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards