Based upon the results of a recent study, the net value of assets held

Not really...

The argument says it is comparing young adults with middle-age professionals. The conclusion is about young adults and middle-age professionals as well! What do working adults have to do with them? The study does not have to compare young to the working adults, it compares the young and middle- age professionals

E
the argument says
the net value of assets held by young adults or for the benefit of young adults exceeds . The colored portion is the key here.

Now, if you look at option E.
It states The argument never considers that the study compares assets held both by or for the benefit of young adults with assets held by working adults

Therefore option E, clearly points out the flaw by showing that middle aged working population holds assets for the benefit of young adults thereby suggesting that the young people might not hold more assets and hence the young adults might still be bigger spenders and smaller savers.

Based upon the results of a recent study, the net value of assets held by young adults or for the benefit of young adults exceeds the net value of assets held by middle-age working professionals with children. The common notion that young adults or so-called "twenty somethings" are bigger spenders and smaller savers than middle-age adults is, therefore, false.

The argument is primarily flawed for which of the following reasons?

A) The argument does not properly consider the impact of the debt financing of assets.
B) The argument never discusses the effects of filing for bankruptcy and twenty somethings' proclivity for deficit spending leading to bankruptcy.
C) The argument never discusses the role that the country's tax code, which encourages financial investment on the part of twenty somethings, plays.
D) The argument does not specify the exact amounts of saving and spending on the part of each age group.
E) The argument never considers that the study compares assets held both by or for the benefit of young adults with assets held by working adults.

Two things I immediately noticed were "by... or for" young adults, and the keyword "bigger... and smaller" in comparing spending and savings of two groups.

I ultimately chose D on the following reasoning. Taking into account young adults may have larger asset pools overall, it is still very possible for young adults to spend maybe 80% of their assets, saving 20%, while middle-age adults spend perhaps 40% and save 60%. I felt this should resolve the contradiction that young adults are bigger spenders and smaller savers, as they can still be by proportion yet retain a higher overall savings/assets. This way the conclusion is flawed. Young adults can be bigger spenders, and still retain greater overall assets.

However the correct answer is E, citing the two pools being compared are not comparable. I suppose this could also be correct, but I would really appreciate an explanation as to why this is the better answer.

Thank you.

Your analysis of the situation is spot on, and you have caught a flaw in the argument. Total assets of young adults could be greater than those of working professionals, and at the same time assets per young adult could be lower than assets per working professional. So the relationship between the values of total assets of each group is a flawed basis for making the above argument, which is concerned with individual spending and saving habits. The thing is that that is NOT what D addresses. D is about aggregate spending and assets, rather than about individual spending and assets. So D does nothing to address the issue that you have mentioned.

E does bring up a real issue with the argument. Young adults could be big spenders and yet assets could be held for them and thus be unaffected by that spending. So comparing assets held by and for young adults with those held directly by working professionals is not a sound way to arrive at a conclusion about their relative degrees of spending and saving.

So is correct.

NVA ( Young Adults for their benefits ) > NVA (Middle aged working Professionals with children)

The notion young adults are bigger spenders is false.

1. Young Adults = Spending > Saving
2. Middle Aged Adults = Spending <= Saving

The survey compares - Young Adults Vs Middle aged working Professionals with children
The notion states - Young Adults Vs Middle Aged Adults

Middle Aged adults = Middle aged working Professionals ( With children + Without children) + Middle aged non working Professionals ( With children + Without children)

The survey takes into consideration only Middle aged working Professionals with children and draws conclusion on Middle Aged adults

The argument is primarily flawed for which of the following reasons?

A) The argument does not properly consider the impact of the debt financing of assets. - Out of scope & Irrelevant
B) The argument never discusses the effects of filing for bankruptcy and twenty somethings' proclivity for deficit spending leading to bankruptcy. - Out of scope & Irrelevant
C) The argument never discusses the role that the country's tax code, which encourages financial investment on the part of twenty somethings, plays. - Out of scope & Irrelevant
D) The argument does not specify the exact amounts of saving and spending on the part of each age group. - Irrelevant
E) The argument never considers that the study compares assets held both by or for the benefit of young adults with assets held by working adults.

Lets examine the last part of the option (E) before finalizing it -

The study compares assets held
both by ( young adults )
or for the benefit of young adults ( Held by Adults other than young adults )
with assets held by working adults. ( held by working adults with children + held by working adults without children)

Hence IMHO (E) .

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The fundamental flaw in the argument is that it is comparing unlike parts. Specifically, the argument is comparing the net value of assets held by or in the name of a group with the net value of assets held by (and not in the name of) another group. It is quite possible that the large value of assets held for children or beneficiaries (e.g., trusts and estates) comprise large amounts of money.

A. The argument notes that the study considered "the net value of assets" (i.e., assets minus liabilities). Consequently, the study did adequately account for the role of debt in acquiring assets.

B. Eliminating one's debt via bankruptcy would not be unique to the twenty something demographic nor would debt spending change the value of net assets held in one's name.

C. The information about the tax code does not undermine the conclusion of the study. Instead, it simply provides an explanation for why the value of assets (not necessarily net assets) is larger than expected among twenty somethings (i.e., tax incentives fueled it).

D. The argument is not based upon the exact amount of spending between age groups. Rather, the argument is based upon relative spending and saving between age groups.

E. The argument compares the assets held by and for the benefit of someone with the assets held by (and not for) a different type of person. This unlike comparison is not sufficient logical grounds to make an argument comparing the two groups.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.