Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 3 · Question 15

Incorrect. This answer addresses one of the two noted consequences. However, that consequence doesn't require everyone who has worked 40+ years to be over 65—just enough to make an impact on the opportunities for others.

Incorrect. This answer is too strong—the argument doesn't require all young people to be highly trained. As long as enough young people are trained and can't find jobs because of the prior generations holding onto their jobs, the argument can stand.

Incorrect. This answer connects and conflates the two consequences, but that's not required for the argument to work. Each of those consequences can be independently unacceptable and justify the intermediate conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument cares only about the dissatisfaction of the youth, not the older generation.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
If 65+yo people keep working:
(1) Young people entering the job market won't get jobs in areas they're trained in, resulting in widespread dissatisfaction
(2) It's unfair of those who have been working 40+ years to deprive others of opportunities
So if 65+yo are permitted to keep working, we'll face unacceptable consequences.Therefore - People who are 65 and over shouldn't be allowed to keep working

Answer Anticipation:
This is a pretty complicated argument, so let's take time to walk through that structure.

First, the argument introduces what "[m]any people" object to, setting up the opposing point. From there, it pivots to a qualified conclusion. We can tell it's a conclusion because it's a clear opinion ("unacceptable outcomes"), and the "if" adds a qualification to it—if people 65 and over are allowed to continue to work.

What's that based on? Well, the Journalist lays out two consequences—young people can't get jobs, and it's unfair to deprive people of opportunities after a long career. These are support for that conclusion in that they explore the consequences the author states are unacceptable.

Before moving on, we can ask ourselves if these consequences are unacceptable, or is that an assumption? Since the argument never establishes what would make consequences unacceptable, and neither of these are inherently unacceptable. There is a gap here between the consequences and the judgment on them! We've found a flaw.

Moving on to the last statement, it's clearly a conclusion ("Therefore"). We need to determine if it's an intermediate conclusion, or the main point. Checking to see which conclusion supports the other, it makes more sense to say that we should keep the mandatory retirement because getting rid of it has unacceptable consequences than the other way around, so the last sentence is the main point, and the earlier one is the intermediate conclusion.

If getting rid of something has unacceptable consequences, should it be kept? Absolutely—"unacceptable" means that something can't be allowed to happen. The intermediate conclusion justifies the main point, so there's no gap there to look for in an answer.

Now, we're going to cheat a bit. We'd head into the answers expecting to find something establishing either of the consequences as unacceptable, but no such answer exists! That means we missed a gap in the argument. No worries, it just means we have to hop back in to see where that gap is.

The intermediate conclusion → main point jump is still valid, so let's focus on the list of consequences as support for that intermediate conclusion. There is another feature there that we didn't analyze (but we should have)—the qualification on that conclusion. The intermediate conclusion is conditioned on those reaching 65 being permitted to continue working. Is that condition met by the situations in the consequences? It actually isn't. Those two consequences rely on people 65 and over actually working, not being permitted to work. Since there's a jump between the details in the situations described and the condition in the intermediate conclusion they support, the correct answer should address that gap, stating that if people are permitted to work past 65, some actually will.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a connection between the qualification in the intermediate conclusion and the two consequences it describes that support it. If people over 65 wouldn't work even if permitted to, then the consequences wouldn't come to pass and the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion is qualified—it's based on a condition/says "If . . . "—be sure to check to see how the premises and that condition overlap. Knowing whether the condition is met will be important in analyzing the logic.