Q15 - Journalist: Many people object

[noah]

I realize we don't have a full explanation for this tricky Necessary Assumption question, so here goes!

The core of this argument is:

Premise: 65+ people continue working --> young people unable to get jobs they trained for --> dissatisfaction
+
Premise: Unfair for workers of 40+ years to block opportunities for others

LEADS TO

Intermediate Conclusion: 65+ are permitted to continue working indefinitely --> we will face unacceptable outcomes

LEADS TO

Final Conclusion: Mandatory retirement should be retained

(E) is necessary! Negation: If retirement ceases, nobody will choose to work past 65. Oh, then all those consequences won’t actually happen!

As for the incorrect answers:

(A) Tricky! Let’s negate it: some folks that have worked 40 years are under 65 yrs. old. Does this mean we can’t get to intermediate conclusion? No, we can still get there since the outcomes of the 65+ crowd would still be unacceptable.

(B) “Highly trained” is an easy reason to eliminate this answer. The argument is about those who trained for a role. Even if (B) did not shift the topic, it’s not important to this argument applies to all young people.

(C) Doesn’t the negated for of (C) undo the relationship in the premise? No, the premise about fairness is about having opportunities blocked (not about training). Another angle on this answer choice: what if you’re trained but really unprofessional? According to (C), it’s unfair if you don’t get a job for which you trained.

(D) Another tempting answer. If people are forced to retire at 65…wait, this argument is about what happens if they’re NOT required. This answer provides a nice example of a choice in which all concepts are mentioned (though perhaps the wrong side of them—who cares about older people’s dissatisfaction) but that is nonetheless out of scope.


#officialexplanation

[jade.harry1]

I chose A here initially because I was dumb and didn't read through the last answer choice carefully. I can see now why E is the most obvious assumption since the conclusion is that "if those who reach 65 are permitted to continue working indefinitely, we will face unacceptable outcomes", and so if we didn't assume that some would continue working, the argument falls apart. But I still have trouble understanding why it couldn't also be A. Is it because it's only targeting a premise?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I can see the thought process why (A) would be tempting. Especially if you're focused on the question in the argument about whether it is fair for those who have worked 40 or more years to deprive others of opportunities.

The answer is that even if that is your focus, it doesn't need to be true that "anyone" who has worked 40 years is at least 65 years old but rather that there are "at least some" people who are like this.

Simple case of degree. (A) is too strong to needed for the conclusion to hold.

Does that clear this one up?

[jpchris3]

Hi,

I'm still a bit confused why (A) is wrong... is the negation of "any one" "no one?" If so, if no one who has worked 40 years is at least 65 years old, doesn't the argument fall apart?

[timmydoeslsat]

The negation of anyone is not no one. The reason is due to us wanting a logical negation of that word. We want to split the logic world into half. If you split the world into anyone and no one, where would you put the idea of some people work past 65 and some do not? You would not have a place to put it! The logical negation of black? Not black. If you said that the logical negation of black was white, where would you place gray, etc?

This is the same issue. The logical negation of anyone is not anyone, which would be the same as some are not.

Any is functioning as all. This answer choice is really saying that all people that have worked 40 years is at least 65 years old. And we do not have to have that be true. We do not even need all 65 year olds to have worked 40 years. We would need some to have though.

So this answer choice has a problem of degree.

This question could have also hinged on the issue that those two ideas discussed are unacceptable outcomes.

[nandy_millette]

I got this question right through POE, however I have a question. This question ask for a assumption upon which the "journalist argument" depends. So I can see why E is right.

However, when I first read this question I did not pick up on the question stem i.e the fact that we are analysing the "journalist argument" and "not the entire argument"

Based on my misguided sense of the question stem, I identified the gap as: "Critics have an objection to mandatory retirement of people 65+, they claim that it is arbitrary however the journalist's argument re-words this objection as "removing mandatory retirement means people 65+ we continue to work indefinitely" and in turn argues against that "modified view of the critics objection". Classic straw man (I think)

So my question is, if this were a Flaw Question (about the flaw in the entire argument) would my identification of the gap be correct?? or would it only be correct if the journalist main conclusion was "the critics are wrong" I know its irrelevant but I would like to know

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, nandy_millette!

I must admit, though, I don't quite see the difference between the "journalist argument" and the "entire argument". Whenever we read an argument on the LSAT, we must consider and analyze the entire argument, and indeed, that's what we must do here.

The critics aren't directly a part of the argument core here - they simply represent an opposing point. Opposing points are just something contrary to the argument the author is actually making, like in this argument:

Many people claim that roses are the best because they smell nice. However, roses cause psychosis. Therefore, roses suck.

Now, you raise a great point that there's a disconnect between the journalist's objection to allowing "working indefinitely" and an arbitrary cut-off at 65. However, disconnects between opposing points and parts of the argument core are often not relevant.

Now, if the conclusion was "the critics are wrong", then suddenly that first sentence because part of the argument core itself (by virtue of being the thing the conclusion denies).

Alternatively, if the critics were actually given dialogue here, and the journalist responded (starting with "However"), then we could have a question that asked what mistake the in responding to the critics.

But without these variations, an opposing point is just a jumping off point for our author.

Please let me know if that clears up your question on this!

[seychelles1718]

Why is C wrong?

I think the reason why I picked C is that, if C is negated, I thought it destroys the argument. However, now I see that it actually doesn’t. Even if it is FAIR for a person not to get a job in the profession for which that person was trained, this doesn’t contradict the stimulus. We only know that it is NOT fair that “those who worked more than 40 years” deprive others of their jobs. The stimulus doesn’t say it’s unfair for ANY person. Unfairness is restricted to when old people deprive younger people of jobs.

Is my reasoning correct?

[JeremyK460]

I can see the thought process why (A) would be tempting. Especially if you're focused on the question in the argument about whether it is fair for those who have worked 40 or more years to deprive others of opportunities.

The answer is that even if that is your focus, it doesn't need to be true that "anyone" who has worked 40 years is at least 65 years old but rather that there are "at least some" people who are like this.

we don't need 'some who've worked 40 years are at least 65' to be true
let's say the answer choice were such and then negated: 'no one who's worked 40 years is at least 65'
what if all the people who've worked 40 years are 64
the point is that they can work and hold their position until the day they die
the stimulus says they are allowed to hold their jobs indefinitely
which would be a problem if you're a younger person eagerly waiting for a position to open up