Subscription pricing
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 ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █████ ████
b
All young people ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██████████████
c
It is unfair ███ █ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████
d
If people are ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███████████████ █████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███████
e
If retirement ceases ██ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███