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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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- A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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. 总量没有变
- Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.
我选的是Ｂ 不知道为什么要选Ｄ啊 就算总量没有变，也没有ＷＥＡＫＥＮ 啊，因为只有那些already had long-term savings的人 的总量没有变 不太明白 | 
