请教一道逻辑题目~

rainbowmanutd

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A.    A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
这个题目先c，我的问题是为什么A不对？
谢谢！

shentuomi

这题选D吧
第一句话表明目的：政府计划的目的是提高存款量
只有D说明存款只是一个账户转移到了另一个账户，存款总量并没有改变
A中虽然句首有substantial，但后面只是some money，ie，即使撤回一些存款，仍不影响大局的提高存款量的目标

rainbowmanutd

对，选d  我写作了，呵呵

leosnoon

我也选D
C是支持啊，不是weaken吧，普通存款按级别收税的话，当然大家都把前放到特殊存款了，支持了结论
A 无关了把，premise 限制了unless money is withdrawn， 即使可以取一点点，你也不能推出结果是什么啊，没有明确的条件支持这个选项，不能加添主观想法