Self-study
Journalist: Many people object to mandatory retirement at age 65 as being arbitrary, arguing that people over 65 make useful contributions. ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ █████████████ ██ ████ ████ ████████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ██████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████
Summary
The journalist concludes that we should continue to make retirement mandatory after age 65. Her reasoning includes a list of consequences, and these consequences support the sub-conclusion that the outcomes from lifting the mandate are unacceptable.
Notable Assumptions
The journalist employs two “unacceptable outcomes” as support, but we don’t actually know that these things will come to pass. She assumes that allowing people that are 65+ to continue working means that they will choose to continue working. Maybe the mandate is lifted, but everyone wants to retire at age 65 anyway.
We need to know that, if the mandate is lifted, that some people that are 65+ will choose to keep working.
15.
The journalist's argument depends on ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Anyone who has ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █████ ████
It isn’t necessary for everyone that has worked 40 years to be in the 65+ age group. If this is negated, and we have some people that have worked for 40 years but are younger than 65, our argument is not destroyed.
b
All young people ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██████████████
Unnecessary. The premises are concerned about some portion of young people entering the workforce, it doesn’t have to be all of them.
(B) is also incorrect because the argument doesn’t discuss “highly” trained professionals.
c
It is unfair ███ █ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████
We don’t need the rejection of a qualified person to be unfair. The premises employ widespread dissatisfaction (regardless of fairness), and that it is unfair for a certain group of people (worked 40 years) to deprive others of opportunities. (C) describes something different.
d
If people are ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███████████████ █████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███████
Irrelevant. We are not discussing older people’s feelings.
e
If retirement ceases ██ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███
This must be true for the journalist’s argument. If negated, this would be “If retirement ceases to be mandatory... no people will choose to work past 65.” That means that the worrisome outcomes from undoing the mandate (the premises) are no longer a concern.