Logical Reasoning

PT9 · S4 · Q6 The economies of some industrialized countries

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

The economies of some industrialized countries face the prospect of large labor shortages in the decades ahead.

Conclusion

If the discriminatory practice of mandatory retirement at age sixty-five were eliminated, the labor shortages facing these economies would be averted.

Evidence

The economies of some industrialized countries face the prospect of large labor shortages in coming decades.

These same countries have a vast number of experienced and productive older workers who currently get driven from the workforce upon turning sixty-five, due to mandatory retirement at that age.

Evaluate

This argument fits a recommendation/plan pattern (eliminate mandatory retirement) designed to address a future problem (expected labor shortage).

How could we follow this plan (get rid of mandatory retirement at 65), but not achieve the goal (there is still a labor shortage)?

Goal

The argument is assuming that the Plan is feasible, that people would "cooperate" with it, and that it wouldn't backfire. Look for ideas that seem necessary for the Plan to work, or ideas that if negated sound like the Plan wouldn't work.

The argument assumes that

older workers have acquired skills
Irrelevant Comparison
The author never said older workers have unique skills that younger workers lack. It’s enough that older workers are experienced and productive. We don’t need them to have “extremely valuable” and “unique” skills. We just need viable workers to avert this labor shortage (not necessarily superior workers).
4% picked this
workers in industrialized countries are
Out of Scope: unprepared for idleness
Whether older workers are financially prepared or unprepared for retirement is irrelevant to solving labor shortages through continuing employment. This answer has to do with how older people feel about retirement, not about whether allowing them to work past 65 would alleviate the labor shortage.
1% picked this
Correct
a large number of workers
Why this is right
The argument does need to assume that if we allowed people to work beyond 65, many of them would. After all, if very few people chose to work beyond 65, then those older people would not be able to solve our large labor shortage. This sort of objection is one of the common themes with arguing that a Plan would fail: it's basically saying that "people wouldn't cooperate with this Plan the way the author is intending".
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
93% picked this
mandatory retirement at age sixty-five
Out of Scope: first instituted
We don't care at all about why or when mandatory retirement first began. We only care about whether getting rid of it now would fix our labor shortage.
0% picked this
a substantial proportion of the
Opposite
If a substantial proportion of officially retired workers is already employed, then removing mandatory retirement wouldn’t be as critical to preventing a shortage. This runs counter to the argument’s assumption that many workers are currently forced out at sixty-five.
2% 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