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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
goal:鼓励L市民提高存款数量
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
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论