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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
d说明存款的增加不是因为受政府发起的特别账户计划的鼓励,而是本来就有长期存钱习惯的人把钱转到那个账户的,并没有起到鼓励长期存钱习惯的作用
削弱“存款增加”不只有减少,还有稳定这个可能性
这个解释不太合理啦。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
D说明存款增加的原因不一定是政府的计划,是本身有存款的人自发的。
一开始没想明白还以为D在增强……
原来意思是存款总量并没有增加,只是两个账户一增一减罢了……
太机智了
越做模考越觉得以前做的题目带来的影响太大了。。。已经提前体会鸡精反噬了@。@
这句话是什么意思呀( ⊙ o ⊙ )!
就是说这道题目我之前看过相似的老题目,就用老题目的思路去解答,但是...用老思路解答容易出危险,然后就错了
soga
我也是,不打算看鸡精了,没做过的反而能做对,类似的反而做不对
我也是, 题就看了第一行 ^_^
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论