请教GWD6-Q20 谢谢~~

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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

A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

B. 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.

C. The rate at which interest earned on money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income bracket of the account holder.

D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.

E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government's plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.

艾。。。我实在是搞不明白了。。。

大家一定帮我啊~~~
谢谢！！

首先要明确government 的目的地是什么，是要increase the saving，这里应该是个总量，然后government 想出一个招，退出一个special account不要利息税大家都来存吧，结果募集了一大堆存款,说是计划生效了。

但是D指出了其实通过special account来刺激存款的策略没什么用，因为人们只是把以前的存款挪了个地方，存款的总量没有变

不好意思啊。。。

我昨天一急。。。就发这儿了。。。

下次一定谨记！！

谢谢解答了~~  >M<