返回列表 发帖

gwd-6-20

Q20:

Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five. Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts. Workers in Levaska who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.

答案是D, 可我选的是B, 我觉得B是削弱, D是加强. 不知对不对?

收藏 分享

You made a typical mistake: you did not make clear what the conclusion is.

The conclusion is whether the approach has encouraged the saving. If the conclusion is that everyone will benefit, B will be the answer. Think again, hard.

TOP

政府的目的是吸引更多的存款,D中,人们只是把钱从一个账户移到另一个账户,总量没有增加

b,题中并没说一定要吸引工人的存款,无关项。

TOP

返回列表

站长推荐 关闭


美国top10 MBA VIP申请服务

自2003年开始提供 MBA 申请服务以来,保持着90% 以上的成功率,其中Top10 MBA服务成功率更是高达95%


查看