GWD-6-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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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 A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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. 总量没有变

5. 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

题：政府要人存钱，设立了特殊帐户，百万进入此帐户，但政策失败，为什么？

B.因为存钱到以前的特殊帐户的人不能存钱到这里。（但是确实有百万了，所以不关他们的事，你们不能存别人可以存）

D.因为百万里面很多来自已经有的长期存款帐户的转账行为。(恩，有点道理，吸引的钱是原来银行里有的)

就题论题。