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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
削弱证明goal可能无法实现,因为D: citizens都把钱从另一个账户转到special account,并没有增加存款总额
方案:设置一个不收tax的账户
削弱目的-->没有达到目的/副作用
D:大多数人只是把原本saving转移到了special account里面(即,总的saving还是没有增加)
A:他们取不取special account里面的钱跟存多少钱没有关系
B:也没说明worker是多少人,worker不存总也会有其他人存钱的
A B都是表明这个special account没有被有效使用。没有有效使用,不足以证明计划不成功,不是根本的削弱。
只有D,肯定了special account有效果,存钱的多了。但是这些存钱的不是新增加的储户,而是从别的储蓄账户转过来的老储户。(从根本上削弱)
理解成了提高special account的储蓄量
文段的目标是 encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings
钱多不代表新的存钱多,已有的多也可以
D选项:因为文段的目的是保证存款总额的增加,而D选项中仅仅是存款的转移而非增加
plan:长期存款限制提钱的免税银行政策
因为 已经有很多存款 所以 方案有效(提高了存款数量)
❓题干中主要的篇幅是方案推理,但是题目问的是“weaken the argument”,而不是“evaluate the plan” 所以我更关注的是题干最后一句的果因推理
【因为 已经有很多存款 所以 方案有效(提高了存款数量)】
weaken ➡️ 削弱根据因果关联得出的结论/给出另一个导致结论的原因
⚠️ D选项中的 transfer(转账只是把钱转到了银行账户里) 实际amount并没有增加;同时也说明了special accounts中million dollars的来源
D项 是说存进special account的钱原来就在银行里,只不过是普通账户,所以居民put into saving的钱总数并没有增加,只是从一个账户换到了另一个账户,计划不起作用
我的理解: A和计划无关。这题果:Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts 因: 计划的实施。削弱是因为这个计划成功的原因。去找他因。D,因为只是钱从一个账户转到另一个,所以并不是计划的成功带来的原因 (可以说明) A,中途取钱,这个无关。因为有没有取钱,都有大量钱在special accounts,这不能说明计划没有成功。登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
削弱:特殊账户里累积的钱不一定就是有新的人存的,而是之前在其他账户里存钱的人存到特殊账户里,所以无法证明saving是在增加的。
题目没看清,政府的目的!!!
答案:plan实施了也不能达到goal(存款从A账户转到B账户,A+B的钱的总额并没有发生变化),所以plan无效,削弱
正确答案是,存款总额没变,只是转移了存款账户
这道题不是方案推理,而是因果推理。前提:因- special accounts 中的钱增加了很多,结论:果-方案在起作用。削弱:因果无关,特殊账户中钱增加是因为其他账户中的存款转移到了这里。也就是说,居民存款并没有增加。方案的目的无法达到!
A: 说一些人提钱,这是另一个事实
B: 这些worker已经存钱,他们不是鼓励对象
C: 说明政策与事实无关
D: c储存率从一个账户转到另一个特别账户,没变没有激励作用
E: 批评没有什么用