ChaseDream

标题: 再问gwd6-20 [打印本页]

作者: saken 时间: 2005-4-9 16:34
标题: 再问gwd6-20

Q20:

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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

我觉得要 increase the amount of money they put into savings，有两个办法一是使人多存钱，二是使人少取钱。d选项是针对一来weaken的，而a选项也针对二weaken了。并且原文中也说了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savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.似乎更看重法二，所以我看到a就选了。请nn指教

作者: autumn_leaves 时间: 2005-4-9 16:53

问一下自己,如果A成立,政府的目的达到了吗?

你会觉得就算拿出一点钱,政府眼要增加存款的目的也已经达到了.

作者: saken 时间: 2005-4-9 17:06
可是是A substantial number of Levaskans都拿了呀

作者: autumn_leaves 时间: 2005-4-9 17:19

1:是选最优,想一下A和D比起来哪个更能削弱.

2:A中at least some of,不拿全部就达到目的

作者: lawyer_1 时间: 2005-4-9 20:27
原文推理是在special accounts增加的前提下得出结论savings增加。D指出savings并没增加，只是拆东墙补西墙，从这个账户拿到那个账户，总的没增加。A说的那些人在SPECIAL ACCOUNTS中拿钱和原文一点关系都没有，只要那个special accounts增加了就行。

作者: iamxiaocao2003 时间: 2006-11-16 10:15

以下是引用lawyer_1在2005-4-9 20:27:00的发言：
原文推理是在special accounts增加的前提下得出结论savings增加。D指出savings并没增加，只是拆东墙补西墙，从这个账户拿到那个账户，总的没增加。A说的那些人在SPECIAL ACCOUNTS中拿钱和原文一点关系都没有，只要那个special accounts增加了就行。

太经典了！佩服的五体投地！！

作者: lisony 时间: 2007-10-4 15:30

我觉得B也正确。工人已经在公司办了公司提供长期存款账户，就不可能再办政府提供的了。因此，政府的special acounts没有增加。削弱

作者: 阿土莎莎 时间: 2007-11-14 12:30

作者: tigercaiqun 时间: 2008-2-6 00:46

醍醐灌顶啊!真希望NN们还能常来转转.

作者: shirley8707 时间: 2008-5-8 15:30

support lawyer

作者: sunnyeva 时间: 2008-7-24 19:59
选择A还是D，我觉得本题关键是理解the government's plan 是什么。原文开头说是增加savings,所以设立special accounts.那么，plan与否成功的关键，不是看special accounts增加多少，而是看savings增加了多少，也就是总数增了多少。D意味着总数没增加，所以削弱，选D。而A选项，纵使人们取了钱，但前提是他们已经ha invested in the special accounts,所以或许还是有可能plan是成功的。因为总数savings增加了还是减少了这里未知，所以不能完全确定plan成功与否。

作者: wellner 时间: 2008-12-18 05:38

以下是引用lisony在2007-10-4 15:30:00的发言：

我觉得B也正确。工人已经在公司办了公司提供长期存款账户，就不可能再办政府提供的了。因此，政府的special acounts没有增加。削弱

我也是选的B。后来仔细考虑，B牵扯到这种账户的优点：即可以拿是税前收入来存款。这一点似乎和政府的这个政策没有关系。因为这部分人已经在公司开立这样的账户了，即这个政策不会影响这部分人，所以不能用来削弱。

作者: Brilliance 时间: 2009-7-29 22:45
.

作者: sunzhaoyang 时间: 2009-8-20 23:15
并不正确，仅仅对这一类人的讨论并不能得出对整个城市的影响

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)