Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorStrengthen

Economist: To encourage retirement savings, several mid-sized firms replaced their opt-in retirement plans with an automatic enrollment system featuring a default employee contribution rate of 3 percent of gross salary. Five years after implementation, overall employee participation rose from 42 percent to 88 percent. Nonetheless, financial analysts argue that this policy change reduced the overall median retirement wealth accumulated by participating employees by retirement age. They reason that under the opt-in system, the self-selected participants chose an average contribution rate of 7 percent, whereas the vast majority of employees enrolled under the automatic system never actively adjusted their contribution rate above the 3 percent default.

Statement: The finding that workers enrolled under the automatic system are significantly less likely to open or contribute to supplementary individual retirement accounts than were workers under the opt-in system provides logical support for the financial analysts' conclusion.

Cevap: Cevap

Cevap

True
Evaluating the statement as True is correct because the analysts' argument relies on the assumption that employees anchored to the lower default contribution rate of 3 percent did not compensate by saving through other retirement channels. Demonstrating that automatically enrolled workers were even less likely to fund external supplementary retirement accounts closes this gap, eliminating a major counter-explanation and strengthening the claim that overall median retirement wealth was reduced.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument and identify the conclusion and premises
The financial analysts conclude that replacing the opt-in plan with automatic enrollment at a 3 percent default rate reduced overall median retirement wealth accumulation for participating employees. The premise is that automatic enrollment anchored the vast majority of participants at a 3 percent contribution rate, compared to a 7 percent average under the opt-in system.
Accurately identifying the author's precise conclusion and reasoning gap is required before evaluating any strengthening claim.
2
Identify the unstated assumption and potential inferential vulnerabilities
The argument assumes that lower internal plan contribution percentages translate directly into lower overall retirement wealth, implicitly assuming that workers under the automatic system did not make up the difference through other savings vehicles (such as external IRAs or personal investment accounts).
Strengthening statements in logical reasoning often eliminate alternative explanations or validate unstated assumptions.
3
Assess the logical impact of the supplementary statement
The statement provides empirical evidence that workers under the automatic system did not compensate via outside accounts and were in fact less likely to use supplementary individual retirement accounts. This rules out the compensatory savings hypothesis and solidifies the link between the 3 percent default inertia and reduced overall retirement wealth.
A finding that closes an inferential gap and eliminates a counter-hypothesis provides valid logical support for the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening an Argument by Eliminating an Alternative Explanation
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Strengthen

Bu konudan daha fazla soru