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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
一道旧题目,但是结论不同。这里问“账户中已经有百万美元,是成功鼓励”要削弱,要削弱鼓励存款方式无效
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
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论