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.