The use of money causes a civilization to decline. That this is true

Question

The use of money causes a civilization to decline. That this is true is shown by the way the troubles of Western civilization began with the invention of money. While real money (gold and silver) is bad enough, imitation money (paper money) is a horror. The decline of Western civilization exactly parallels the increasing use of money—both real money and worthless paper money—as a substitute for things of intrinsic value.

Which one of the following, if true, could contribute most to a refutation of the argument?

(A) People prefer using money to having a system in which goods are bartered for other goods of equal intrinsic value.

(B) Eastern cultures have used money, and Eastern civilizations have not declined.

(C) The use of paper money encourages disregard for the value of work because the money itself has no intrinsic value.

(D) The rate of exchange between gold and paper money has fluctuated greatly in Western civilization.

(E) Some employers exchange goods for their employees’ services in order to avoid the exchange of money

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

If you aren't sure about the conclusion, ask yourself, "Why is this passage here? What is the author trying to do?" Is the author's main point that "the troubles of Western civilization began with the invention of money" or that imitation money is worse than real money? As a test, try putting the word "therefore" in front of the part you believe to be the conclusion. Does the rest of the passage form an argument supporting that conclusion?

Does the author tell us that "the use of money causes a civilization to decline" as evidence to support that "the decline of Western civilization exactly parallels the increasing use of money as a substitute for things of intrinsic value"? No, in fact, it is the opposite. Everything in the passage after the first sentence forms an argument that logically leads to the conclusion that, " , the use of money causes a civilization to decline." The phrase, "that this is true is shown by..." is a hint that the previous sentence was your conclusion. The author starts with a statement and then explicitly says that what follows will support that first statement.

Once you've arrived at the conclusion or purpose of a passage, make sure you understand how the author arrives at that conclusion or purpose:

"the troubles of Western civilization began with the invention of money" - If this is true, it would be evidence  supporting  (not proving) the author's conclusion. 
 "The decline of Western civilization exactly parallels the increasing use of money—both real money and worthless paper money—as a substitute for things of intrinsic value." - Okay, if the decline of Western civilization exactly parallels the increasing use of money, then, again, this would be evidence supporting the author's conclusion. But why is money bad for a civilization? We aren't told why specifically, but we can infer that using money as a substitute for things of intrinsic value is bad for a civilization. 
 "While real money (gold and silver) is bad enough, imitation money (paper money) is a horror." - This statement supports the inference that using money as a substitute for things of intrinsic value is bad for civilization. In other words, "real" money (gold and silver) is bad enough because it is a substitute for things of intrinsic value. "Imitation" money is even worse because it is a substitute for "real" money (a substitute for a substitute!).

I hope that helps!

vishwash · Answer

The use of money causes a civilization to decline.
That this is true is shown by the way the troubles of
Western civilization began with the invention of
money. While real money (gold and silver) is bad
enough, imitation money (paper money) is a horror.
The decline of Western civilization exactly parallels
the increasing use of money—both real money and
worthless paper money—as a substitute for things of
intrinsic value.

Which one of the following, if true, could contribute
most to a refutation of the argument?
(A) People prefer using money to having a system
in which goods are bartered for other goods
of equal intrinsic value.
(B) Eastern cultures have used money, and Eastern
civilizations have not declined.

MY LOGIC - required... how to refute the argument... A says that people prefer money to barter system.. does this not refute the argument.. oa is B.. can not understand some one help

goforgmat · Answer

In order to refute an argument we need to find its conclusion first. 
Conclusion here is 
The use of money causes a civilization to decline.

we need to find evidence that proves this statement wrong or the logic behind it.
keeping this in mind we can clearly arrive at the answer.
A is wrong because if people preferring has nothing to do with how a system is working. this statement does nothing to refute the argument.
A better argument would be to show that many cultures using money have not declined.

chesstitans · Answer

Lesson here:
1/ the conclusion can include a causal relation
2/ the conclusion stands at the beginning of the passage. No key words both in the argument and in the question indicate where the conclusion is.

My question is how to deal with such kind of question?

chesstitans · Answer

the argument is made of 4 sentence: 
1/ the first one is the conclusion
2/ this sentence shows an evidence to support the conclusion
3/ the third sentence is just a fact about money -> no care
4/ this sentence addresses what the evidence in the second sentence is.

CEdward · Answer

So B) seems to me to use evidence from a different place to weaken the argument. This is not typically allowed on the GMAT, but it is here?

MBAB123 · Answer

Hey CEdward , I think it depends on the question stem. If the question had said "The use of money has caused the western civilisation to decline", then whatever has happened with the eastern civilisation wouldn't have been our concern. But the question generalises the statement by saying the use of money causes a civilisation to decline. He then goes on to justify this statement by giving the example of the western civilisation, but his main conclusion is a generalisation of what happens with civilisations in general. Hence, it is appropriate to consider other civilisations. Hope this helps!

RohitSaluja · Answer

Hi  CEdward  the argument conclusion is that the use of money causes the civilization to decline, and the argument then goes on to support this by citing an example of western civilization. While B provides a contrary point of view that "hey eastern civilizations also used money, but they didn't decline/collapse". Now this undermines the author's claim directly.

What has helped me personally with strengthen/weaken questions is to personalize the argument i.e. what/how would I respond to the author in the scenario and whether there would be a comeback from the author to my line of reasoning. If not then we have the right answer with us.

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.

The use of money causes a civilization to decline. That this is true

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The use of money causes a civilization to decline. That this is true

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