Q12 - Some of the most prosperous

[lhermary]

The comparative number of reasons??? It only mentions one reason, older people have fewer reasons to save, which is why I eliminated this answer. Where did I go wrong?

Gracious

[timmydoeslsat]

Older people have fewer reasons to save. Does this mean that young people are more likely to save? Or, by the same side of the coin, that older people are less likely to save?

We don't know the strength of those reasons. Older people, although they have fewer reasons, might still be more likely to save. They want to save for a great retirement. That is one reason. And that includes a lot of potential money. A younger person might want to save for 100 different reasons. Save enough to buy the latest tech gadget, etc.

Just because there are fewer reasons does not mean that older people are less likely to save. Those few reasons might really push them to save, unlike the small superficial reasons that may push young people.

[ohthatpatrick]

The comparative number of reasons??? It only mentions one reason, older people have fewer reasons to save, which is why I eliminated this answer. Where did I go wrong?

Gracious

It sounds from this sentence you're thinking of 'reason' in two different senses.

Yes, the author only gave one reason (i.e. premise) for his conclusion; the author's lone premise is that final phrase that follows the word 'since'.

But that final phrase is talking about the comparative number of reasons older vs. younger people have to save money.

So the language of (D) is accurately describing the argument. (D) says the argument "only takes into account X", and like you said, the author only provided one premise. 'X' was the idea that "older people have fewer reasons to save than do younger people", which is indeed a statement about the comparative number of reasons older and younger people have for saving.

===other answers===

A) the specific reasons young people want to save (and which is the strongest) is irrelevant to weakening the argument. The author's most vulnerable assumption is thinking that "BECAUSE older people have fewer reasons to save, they won't save as much or at all".

B) the author did not assume anything as strong as the idea that "a negative savings rate cannot ever come about in any nation."

C) the author does not have to supply statistics to support the idea that the population is aging. He's arguing that IF the population ages, a certain consequence follows. Whenever we're evaluating a conclusion that's expressed as an IF/THEN idea, we're not supposed to attack the IF part of it. We're supposed to attack the THEN part of it.

E) This does not attack the reasoning error in the argument, which is based on the gap between "older people have fewer reasons to save than do younger people" and "the older the population gets, the less the population will be saving".

[JimW371]

This question is very interesting and actually has two flaws. The premise is "older people have fewer reasons to save than do younger people," and the conclusion is "if average age continues to rise, then the trend continues."

The first flaw lies between the premise and the conclusion, as identified in answer (D).

The second flaw lies in the conclusion itself. Even after we plug the hole made by (D), the conditional statement of the conclusion is still invalid, because average age is not a sufficient condition. What if both young people and old people start saving more? Or young people start saving more to discontinue the trend?

Thus, there could be multiple objections in addressing the second flaw. Unfortunately, (A) is tempting but is not one of such. Young people do not need to have many reasons for saving money.