请教一道GWD6-Q20

Christine瓜瓜

GWD6-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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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?
A.    A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.

我觉得B和D都可以,都是它因削弱,而且我觉得B更优于D,正确选项为D.
有NN来解答一下吗~

sdcar2010

D is better.  If you look at the bigger picture of TOTAL saving for the Levaska region,
1) If B is true, the several million dollars in the special account are NEW savings on top of the old long-term saving.
2) If D is true, part of the money in the special account is TRANSFERRED savings from the old long-term saving.

For the claimed purpose to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings, D weakens the argument since the NET saving could be zero. B is a strengthener, a typical 180 answer.

Hence, D is the correct answer.

Christine瓜瓜

灰常感谢~~~