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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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?

1. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
2. 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.
3. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.
4. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
5. 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?

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。

结论是：吸收了特殊存款，计划成功

A：A是建立在计划成功的基础上的；应该是无关

B：Mindfree说的很彻底；B属于compatible

C：严重无关

D：与原意相悖，削弱

B选项有一个问题就是，他的对象比较狭窄：只是那些工作地点提供长期存款免税的员工。他们不太可能通过特殊帐号存款。但是，他们不存款不能削弱结论：计划成功，计划成功还是失败应该看能否通过特殊帐号吸引新的存款，一部分特殊的市民不加入存款不能直接导致计划失败。还有，B选项没有解释题目的现象：特殊帐号的存款增加了很多。

D选项解释了增加的存款大部分是通过市民转帐实现的，并不是新的存款。因此，计划没有表面上成功，削弱。同时解释了存款增加的现象，因此应该是最佳答案。