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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
Let’s begin by looking at the details of the argument
- Five years ago, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts
- purpose - to encourage citizens to increase the amount of money they put into savings
3) special savings accounts- $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.
4) Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts
Conclusion- the government’s plan is obviously working.
We have to find an option that attacks the conclusion that the government’s plan is working.
A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
It is already stated in the premise that millions of dollars have been accumulated in the special accounts. Option A attacks the premise and not the conclusion and is hence incorrect.
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
In spite of this, millions of dollars have been accumulated in the special accounts. Does not weaken the conclusion that the government’s plan is working. Eliminate B
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.
This just means that the interest rate on tax depends on the income bracket of the account holder. Does not weaken the conclusion. Eliminate C.
D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
The government’s plan was to encourage citizens to increase the amount of money they put into savings. The conclusion says that by introducing the special accounts, the government has succeeded in its plan.
Option D says that many Levaskans who already had long-term savings transferred those savings into the special accounts. This means that there has been no increase in the amounts deposited and that the money deposited in special accounts was already deposited in long-term savings accounts before that. This weakens the conclusion that the government’s plan is working. D is the correct answer.
E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced.
Option E says that many economists who criticized the government’s plan earlier, now claim that it has been successful.
This strengthens the conclusion. Eliminate E.