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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
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