求解一道逻辑题目，怎么也想不通

zy08932

Bank depositors in theUnited States are all financially protected against bank failure because the government insures all individuals' bankdeposits.  An economist argues that thisinsurance is partly responsible for the high rate of bank failures, since itremoves from depositors any financial incentive to find out whether the bankthat holds their money is secure against failure.  If depositors were more selective, then bankswould need to be secure in order to compete for depositors' money.

Which of the following, if true,most seriously weakens the economist's argument?

[url=](A)[/url]Before the government started to insuredepositors against bank failure, there was a lower rate of bank failure thanthere is now.

[url=](B)[/url][c2] Whenthe government did not insure deposits, frequent bank failures occurred as aresult of depositors' fears of losing money in bank failures.

[url=](C)[/url]Surveys show that a significant proportion of depositorsare aware that their deposits are insured by the government.

[url=](D)[/url]There is an upper limit on the amount of an individual'sdeposit that the government will insure, but very few individuals' depositsexceed this limit.

[url=](E)[/url]The security of a bank against failure depends on thepercentage of its assets that are loaned out and also on how much risk itsloans involve.

---

答案是B我选A

我的理解是：因为存款人怕银行的高破产率拿不回钱所以给他们都上了保险

答案意思是：在没有上保险前，高破产率是由于存款人怕银行破产而拿不回钱

我觉得这个完全是加强啊。1:在没上保险前高破产率由于存款然怕银行破产而拿不回钱，所以政府给所有人上了保险
我选的A的意思是：在没上保险前破产率也很低，这样就削弱了说明上保险不是因为高破产率而产生的。

我是不是理解错了还是答案错了？囧囧囧