Columnist: It may soon be possible for an economy to function without paper money. Instead, the government would elec...

shunhe on August 1, 2020

Hi @kmccarthy10,

Thanks for the question! So here, we’re asked for what the overall conclusion of the columnist’s argument is. Let’s recap it real quick. It may soon be possible for an economy to function without paper money; instead, governments will electronically record transactions. But then the author says while this might be technologically feasible, society won’t accept it since it gives government too much power. And people are rightfully distrustful of governments with too much power. Reordering some of these premises, the following order makes sense for the general structure of the argument:

P1: Economies could function without paper money
P2: Governments could electronically record all transactions
P3: But people are distrustful of governments with too much power
P4: People would think the government would have too much power if it did this
Conclusion: Society won’t accept the new system

So we want an answer choice that paraphrases our conclusion above, and (A) does just that. It tells us that a society wouldn’t accept a system in which the government keeps track of transactions electronically instead of having paper money.

Is (E) the conclusion, that no government will be able to operate an economy without the use of paper money? No, we’re not told anything in the stimulus about whether or not the government can or can’t operate an economy without paper money. The argument and conclusion focus on whether the people would accept it or not. For these reasons, (E) isn’t going to be the conclusion.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.