[求助]TTGWD-5-20

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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?

1. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
2. 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.
3. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.
4. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
5. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.

答案是D

虽然其他答案也都不对，但为什么D会起削弱呢。“ steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.”说明政府的PLAN 还是有作用的呀，请大家帮忙指点一下。

政府的目的是increase the amount of the saving,D选项说的是已经存在银行里的钱转到了special account,实质上还是在银行内部进行转帐,当然没有达到政府预想的目的,所以削弱.

明白了，我把削弱对象搞错，以为是反对“该计划鼓励了更多人在这个special account 存钱”

而实际上应该反对的是“该计划增加了存款”没有仔细审题。

非常感谢crystal2003