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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
方案目的:增加长期存款。A选项错误:大量的人取出来存款账户里的一些钱 -- 这其实是一个无关选项,因为取出来一些没关系啊,只要不取出来全部,只要还有钱在account里面,这个方案就还有效!(比较的,是有&无的情况)
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论