Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S3 · Q15 Journalist: Many people object

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

  • 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

Journalist: Many people object to mandatory retirement at age 65 as being arbitrary, arguing that people over 65 make useful contributions.

Evidence

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 jobs in the professions for which they were trained, resulting in widespread dissatisfaction among the young.

Second, it is not fair for those who have worked 40 or more years to deprive others of opportunities.

Conclusion

Mandatory retirement should be retained.

Evaluate

The argument is prescriptive, suggesting what ought to occur. But whether something ought to occur is often contentious for people often view things quite differently. It’s important to recognize that the unacceptable outcomes are really just examples, while the key premise is the if/then relationship. The question at hand though is whether the trigger in that relationship would ever come to pass. Would someone who reached 65 years of age continue to work if permitted to do so?

15.

The journalist's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

  1. Anyone who has worked 40

    Premise Support

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

    11% picked this

  2. All young people entering the

    Weakens / Too Strong

    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.

    2% picked this

  3. It is unfair for a

    Premise Support

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

    7% picked this

  4. If people are forced to

    Weakens

    This provides a counter point to the argument about fairness.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    If retirement ceases to be

    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.

    78% picked this

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