Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT124 S3 Q15 Explanation

Journalist: Many people object

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsNecessary Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Journalist: Many people object to mandatory retirement at age 65 as being arbitrary, arguing that people over 65 make useful contributions. However, if those who reach 65 are permitted to continue working indefinitely, we will face unacceptable outcomes. First, young people entering the job market will not be able to obtain decent or more years to deprive others of opportunities. Therefore, mandatory retirement should be retained.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
15.

The journalist's argument depends on assuming which one of

Answer choices

  1. Premise Support11% picked this

    Anyone who has worked 40 years is at least 65

    This supports the connection between the second example and the if/then premise.

  2. Weakens / Too Strong2% picked this

    All young people entering the job market are highly

    This would undermine the argument since it would make it more likely that young people entering the job market would be able to find a job. Furthermore, the degree of this answer is too strong because it need not be true of all young people, nor must they be highly trained.

  3. Premise Support8% picked this

    It is unfair for a person not to get a job in the profession for which

    This supports the if/then premise that unacceptable outcomes would arise if people were permitted to continue to work indefinitely.

  4. Weakens2% picked this

    If people are forced to retire at age 65, there will be much dissatisfaction among at

    This provides a counter point to the argument about fairness.

  5. Correct78% picked this

    If retirement ceases to be mandatory at age 65, at least some people will choose to

    Why this is right

    This ensures that the trigger in the if/then premise would occur. Otherwise, there would be no need to maintain the mandatory retirement age.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free