This seems fallacious

I just recently heard someone say to another, "You've never worked a day in your life, not that you haven't tried, but you've never had a job, so you couldn't possibly know what career you want to go into."

I feel like this might be a Non Sequitur, but I'm not totally sure.

The heart of the fallacy lies here:

you've never had a job, so you couldn't possibly know what career you want to go into.

I would agree it is a non-sequitur , unless they somehow demonstrate that work experience is a requirement for career satisfaction. At most, work experience might contribute to career satisfaction, but that would not change the fallaciousness of the statement.

This definitely seems like a Non Sequitur to me. Having no previous experience with something isn't really relevant to whether you want it-- for proof, just ask any virgin.

Of course wanting something doesn't mean you will like it when you get it. The point is badly made, but it is understandable to argue that someone should have real world experience before committing to a given career.

For a logician, a non-sequitur means that a conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument.
Your question: "You've never worked a day in your life, not that you haven't tried, but you've never had a job, so you couldn't possibly know what career you want to go into."

So: you never worked in your life.
Though you have tried, you don't know what career you want to choose.

A split mind occurs when X believes that he or she is a real body with a mind. If you are a DUALIST then you will not learn what career to choose. Sure.

If you are a non-dualist who only accepted the one mind, then whatever you choose will fit the career you choose because the mind cannot err.
Hence there is a distinction between 'learning' and 'knowledge'. To understand this is difficult because no one is really interested. They are more interested in fitting square pegs into round holes!
The dualist is preoccupied with methods of argumentation. A non-dualist 'knows' as there is nothing to choose.
Ignatius Udunuwara

I have a problem with the lack of information in this statement. For example, how 'career' and 'work experience' are defined here, and what is the context of this statement. I see some sort of fallacy definition/ambiguity here.