Critical Reasoning

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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

Onl option D suggests a valid situation when the overall savings might not increase and hence fail the gov plans

IMO - D

If many people who already have long term savings are transferring their money over, then it is possible that there is no increase.

But we should weaken the claim that the government’s plan is obviously working. So if Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts, it suggests that the government’s plan is working!

what is the government's plan?
According to the question,
"as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings"

So anything which suggests that savings have not increased should be the answer.

D says people are transferring. Hence D.

ranell wrote:But we should weaken the claim that the government’s plan is obviously working. So if Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts, it suggests that the government’s plan is working!

The Govt's plan is to increase saving and hence the Govt has created special accounts. The amount of money in these account's has accumulated to Millions of $$'s. Hence the Govt's plan (i.e of promoting savings) is working.

This is a causal argument (i.e has a cause and effect)
In order to weaken it we need to identify an alternate route to the "effect"

If people were already saving before the Govt made any plan and all that they did after the implementation of the plan was to transfer money from their already existing savings into the newly created spl accounts, then that would account for the Millions of $$'s but would not necessarily mean that savings were promoted.
And hence would not mean that the Govt's plan is working.
This is what D does and weakens the argument.

The goal of the government is to increase. If no increase happens, the government fails.

I also vote for "D"...

Can someone please tell...is the option "A" is as such strengtheing the govt plan....since despite people withdrawing.... dollars are pouring in....

IMO - B

i think answer is A.

A: not workign because people are withdrawing
B: Out of scope, argument not related to workplace
C: Out of scope, argument mentions nothing about income bracket
D: strengthens, says government plan is actually working
E: out of scope, economists critizing has nothing to do with argument

edit: i think D is right after reading the responses. Levksakins are already saving and now transfering the funds to the account so government plan isnt working.

D offers another explanation

ranell wrote: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.

B is the most suitable option in this case.