求助！！ OG10-131 谢谢大家了！

beryl8

130. Bank depositors in the United States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bank deposits. An economist argues that this insurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since it removes from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bank that holds their money is secure against failure. If depositors were more selective, then banks would need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

131. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the economist's argument?
(A) Before the government started to insure depositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank
failure than there is now.
(B) When the government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as a result of depositors'
fears of losing money in bank failures.
(C) Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositors are aware that their deposits are insured by the
government.
(D) There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual's deposit that the government will insure, but very few
individuals' deposits exceed this limit.
(E) The security of a bank against failure depends on the percentage of its assets that are loaned out and also
on how much risk its loans involve.


答案选B, 可是D为什么不对呢？我的理解是D---大部分的人实际上存的钱并未达到政府要给保险的限额--> 政府保险的政策并未起到很大的影响-->削弱了economist的argument的啊！  


谢谢大家了！

花子落落

D肯定不对吖~大部分的人实际上存的钱并未达到政府要给保险的限额-->大家就不关心在哪家银行存了，因为反正政府会有保障吖~

森然

IMO, economist's argument weaken the government's protective policy, and the question ask to weaken the economist's argument.

In other words, we can solve this problem by offering a situation to strengthen the government's policy.

Choice B says the situation without the G's policy depositor will fear for losing money in bank failures.
That strengthen the G's.