求大神帮帮忙

郭怡君

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A.        A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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


我想知道B选项为什么不能选呢，好纠结。。。。。

AnnAys

alzn2765 发表于 2015-5-22 16:16
逻辑链：
目的： 增加长期储蓄存款
方案：增设特殊户头，65岁以前拿钱出来不划算

此贴已收录至《Alzn大神CD答疑集合》。

郭怡君

alzn2765 发表于 2015-5-22 16:16
逻辑链：
目的： 增加长期储蓄存款
方案：增设特殊户头，65岁以前拿钱出来不划算

哦哦哦，明白了，谢啦

alzn2765

逻辑链：
目的： 增加长期储蓄存款
方案：增设特殊户头，65岁以前拿钱出来不划算
结论：方案会成功

D的意思是那些已经有长期储蓄账户的人直接把钱从长期储蓄账户转到特殊账户，长期存款的总数没加（等于是左兜放右兜），所以方案达不到其目标，方案失败。

B的没说长期储蓄账户的钱会不会增减。只说了这些人可能无法享受到特殊账户带来的优势（所得利息无需缴税），因为他们本来已经有个与特殊账户本有本质区别的长期存款账户。也就是说存在特殊账户和在现有长期储蓄账户没区别。所以，这个方案对他们没影响。这些人的长期储蓄存款可能增加，也可能减少。

D显然比B更加削弱。