PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 15
Journalist: Many people object to mandatory retirement at(85 more words not shown)
The journalist's argument depends on(6 more words not shown)
- AAnyone who has(9 more words not shown)
- BAll young people(8 more words not shown)
- CIt is unfair(17 more words not shown)
- DIf people are(17 more words not shown)
- EIf retirement ceases(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why assume that letting older people keep working prevents younger people from finding good jobs?
The journalist treats employment as if there were a fixed set of opportunities that older workers would otherwise hand over. But we haven't been told that the economy can't create more jobs, or that an older worker's position would go to a newly trained young person. The effect on young workers needs support.
I'm also reluctant to force someone to stop working just because of age. A person might want to retire, or might want to continue contributing. That reaction helps me see the choice the journalist is trying to defend, but it isn't itself a flaw in the reasoning. The journalist argues for mandatory retirement based on lost opportunities and unfairness to others.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for something that argument has to assume. We need a claim the reasoning cannot do without, rather than a broad belief about work or fairness that merely sounds related. Keep the proposed consequences in view as we test the choices.
Working the answers
- A
Someone could start working at 20 and complete 40 years of work by 60. More importantly, the journalist doesn't need every person with 40 years of work to be at least 65. The argument concerns the consequences of allowing people past 65 to continue. A universal claim about everyone with a long work history isn't required.
- B
Some young entrants could lack professional training while others have it. The journalist could still object that the trained group would lose opportunities. Saying all young entrants are highly trained professionals goes far beyond what that objection requires.
- C
The journalist calls it unfair for people with long working lives to deprive others of opportunities. C turns that specific objection into a much broader rule: any failure to get a job in your trained profession is unfair. Someone might fail to get such a job for many other reasons, and the journalist doesn't have to judge all of those situations unfair.
- D
The journalist needn't assume that forced retirement makes older people dissatisfied. The argument focuses on alleged consequences for younger people. Older people's dissatisfaction could be present or absent without supplying the reasoning's essential link.
- ECorrect
What if everyone chose to retire at 65 anyway? Then removing the requirement wouldn't create the continued employment that supposedly blocks younger people's opportunities. The journalist's reason for insisting on mandatory retirement would lose its force.
So at least some people must choose to work past 65 when given the option. That doesn't establish that their work actually causes the predicted problems. It is an earlier requirement: before continued employment can produce those problems, continued employment has to happen.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.