再问gwd6-20

saken

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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 A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.（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savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.似乎更看重法二，所以我看到a就选了。请nn指教

autumn_leaves

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.

saken

可是是A substantial number of Levaskans都拿了呀

autumn_leaves

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

lawyer_1

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。

iamxiaocao2003

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！！

lisony

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。

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

阿土莎莎

tigercaiqun

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。

醍醐灌顶啊!真希望NN们还能常来转转.

shirley8707

support lawyer