Baby boomers - CR

[me.parashar]

The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
A) Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers.
B) Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely.
C) The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.
D) A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.
E) Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.

The answer is B. My problem with B is that it talks about past. If govt. efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely [in past], that doesn't mean that same will be true in future (or in present year) also. I would have agreed with the choice had it said "Govt efforts rarely affect employment trends"

Please advise. Thanks.

[jnelson0612]

The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?
A) Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers.
B) Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely.
C) The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.
D) A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.
E) Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.

The answer is B. My problem with B is that it talks about past. If govt. efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely [in past], that doesn't mean that same will be true in future (or in present year) also. I would have agreed with the choice had it said "Govt efforts rarely affect employment trends"

Please advise. Thanks.

I'd love to discuss this with you, but let me first ask you which answer you think is superior to B? That would be very interesting to know.

[beatthe800]

What is wrong in D?

[RonPurewal]

What is wrong in D?

* first, it's about only "a small proportion of" the boomers, so any effect therefrom is negligible.

* second, the argument is not about numbers of retirees; it's about whether "the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields".
changing the numbers of retirees involved by some small % won't affect this issue.

[SambitP981]

Hi Ron, Srry to open a old thread. I am totally convinced abt answer option B. However I just wanted your reasoning to eliminate option A. Cant we consider this answer option as a alternative explanation? Like if the Immigration reform limits the pool of available workers, then the govt step to achieve 'out-of-work young people' employed is flawed.. how can this reasoning be eliminated?

[RishavR393]

Why the answer cannot be A ?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

The passage mentions 'out-of-work young people', so, logically, there must be at least some out-of-work young people in the city. Take care to note that the aim of the plan is not merely to fill these vacancies any how, but that the government initiative will facilitate the employment of these out-of-work young people in the upcoming vacancies. For that reason, information about whether immigrants could do the jobs isn't relevant to the argument.