求助GWD6-Q20

卮言浅夏

GWD6-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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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.
A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

B.
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.

C.
The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.

D.
Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.

E.
Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.

yoyo561116

答案应该是Ｄ。题中的ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ是说ｓｐｅｃｉａｌ　ｓａｖｉｎｇ　ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ　ｃａｎ　ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅ　ｔｈｅ　ａｍｏｕｎｔ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｔｏｔａｌ　ｓａｖｉｎｇｓ　依据是ｓｐｅｃｉａｌ　ｓａｖｉｎｇ　ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ的数额持续增长。Ｄ说这种增长是由于从别的类型的ｓａｖｉｎｇ　ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ　ｔｒａｎｓｆｅｒ而来的，所以总的ｓａｖｉｎｇ　ａｍｏｕｎｔ并不一定增长了。所以ｗｅａｋｅｎ了作者的ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ

littlestoner

正确答案是D
刚才做这题也选错了，选了A，后来分析才发现，政府的目的是为了增加存款，而D说原本就已经存进去的钱转到特别账户里，并没有增加存款的总额。而A没有D好。

mvmv90

D选项说很多居民把已经存的长期存款转为这种特别存款，不但没有增加存款，反倒占了政府便宜。因此这个计划肯定是没有效的。所以D选项削弱了结论。

antiquarks

这题我也做错了，补充一下，我再读了一下选项A，发现有这么一个问题：

at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

但是文中并没有说some of money到底是多大？如果这些money的取出比较少的话，是不是就不足以削弱？而整个的存储其实还是增加了，不受这少量的影响呢?

heilongh

而且，A没有说是谁取走了这部分钱，是否到达了65岁。
若已经到达65岁的人取走了这部分钱，则政府的plan没有被weaken，而且达到了政府的目的