这个为啥是D，明明反而是support呀，哪来weaken？

frankzhiwei

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously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A.A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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

我选B了，怎么答案是D，求解释~

Helloface

这题是我最不喜欢的一类题，感觉模棱两可。
LZ我的解释不一定对，仅作参考。
从题目角度出发，计划的目的是为了鼓励多存钱且存钱存得长久，所以要免税，D说已经存了长期的人把钱从长期存折里倒到特殊存折里——那也就是说存银行的钱从银行的一个折到另外一个折了，但实际去存钱的人并没有增加，计划并没有鼓励更多的钱存进来，都是吸引的已有的钱。所以计划被WEAKEN了。
而B我觉得是无关选项，说工人并没有从中获益，这个计划的出发点就不是为了（反正不光是为了）居民受益的，目的是增加存入银行的钱，所以工人受益不受益没什么关系。况且workers这个人群比较小，光是worker说明不了什么。

shencangbulu

可能每个人感觉不同,我觉得这题很清晰地是应该D
B的含义太窄了,政府措施的目标人群是全体居民,B只分析了工人部分,其他的没有覆盖到.
原文的推理的是先后发生的两件事情之间的因果关系.Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working也就是说,现在政府觉得措施有效,巨额存款被吸纳,要归功于这个政策.求削弱.那答案就是说明有一个其他的事件导致了巨额存款一直在增多.D就是这么表述的.当地人本来就有储蓄的计划,把钱逐步转移到那个特殊帐户,不是政府出了免税政策才这么干的.