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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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：D。有点不明白。感觉D是支持呀。为什么不选A？

You need to know what the conclusion is and what the premise is.

The conclusion is that the account encourage saving. However, if D is true and the money in that account is just savings from other account, the special account did not have the expected result.

As to A, you need to ask yourself, if A is correct, does the conclusion hold, i.e. does the account encourage saving? I say yes because withdrawn and saving are different. The fact that there is withdraw is out of scope for the conclusion.