BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATBootcamp Starts Sep 21
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE BOOTCAMP

Live Online Bootcamp Class with Top GMAT Expert Chris Peckover

Sep 21 to Oct 9, 2026

Schedule
Mon to Fri · 7:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
Live classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class
  • 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included
View bootcamp & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Support CR Question

Expert replies
by batwaraanirudh » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:07 am
Economist: Some policymakers believe that our country's continued economic growth requires a higher level of personal savings than we currently have. A recent legislative proposal would allow individuals to set up savings accounts in which interest earned would be exempt from taxes until money is withdrawn from the account. Backers of this proposal claim that its implementation would increase the amount of money available for banks to loan at a relatively small cost to the government in lost tax revenues. Yet, when similar tax-incentive programs were tried in the past, virtually all of the money invested through them was diverted from other personal savings, and the overall level of personal savings was unchanged.

The passage as a whole provides the most support for which one of the following conclusions?

(A) Backers of the tax-incentive proposal undoubtedly have some motive other than their expressed aim of increasing the amount of money available for banks to loan.

(B) The proposed tax incentive is unlikely to attract enough additional money into personal savings accounts to make up for the attendant loss in tax revenues.

(C) A tax-incentive program that resulted in substantial loss of tax revenues would be likely to generate a large increase in personal savings.

(D) The economy will be in danger unless some alternative to increased personal savings can
be found to stimulate growth.

(E) The government has no effective means of influencing the amount of money that people
are willing to put into savings accounts.

Could anyone please explain how to solve this question. OA: B
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by theCodeToGMAT » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:22 am
Choice {B} Means that the government's plan to make money without small loss is not possible as when the plan was executed people simply moved their money to Tax free account.Thus saving all the tax which they would have paid in the other personal bank deposits, resulting in loss to government scheme.
R A H U L
Join the discussion

by vinay1983 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:24 am
batwaraanirudh wrote:Economist: Some policymakers believe that our country's continued economic growth requires a higher level of personal savings than we currently have. A recent legislative proposal would allow individuals to set up savings accounts in which interest earned would be exempt from taxes until money is withdrawn from the account. Backers of this proposal claim that its implementation would increase the amount of money available for banks to loan at a relatively small cost to the government in lost tax revenues. Yet, when similar tax-incentive programs were tried in the past, virtually all of the money invested through them was diverted from other personal savings, and the overall level of personal savings was unchanged.

The passage as a whole provides the most support for which one of the following conclusions?

(A) Backers of the tax-incentive proposal undoubtedly have some motive other than their expressed aim of increasing the amount of money available for banks to loan.

(B) The proposed tax incentive is unlikely to attract enough additional money into personal savings accounts to make up for the attendant loss in tax revenues.

(C) A tax-incentive program that resulted in substantial loss of tax revenues would be likely to generate a large increase in personal savings.

(D) The economy will be in danger unless some alternative to increased personal savings can
be found to stimulate growth.

(E) The government has no effective means of influencing the amount of money that people
are willing to put into savings accounts.

Could anyone please explain how to solve this question. OA: B
What is the source?Seems a good question though, with intricate meaning.

So what does the economist say?

To continue same trend of economic growth===savings have to be increased
Recent legislation would aid in this
This would augment money available with banks so as to make them lend more
But past similar legislation did not help, since people only transferred funds from one bag to
another


So takeaways

Similar legislation did not work, since people just transferred funds from one bag to another, without actually contributing extra monies to the "taxless bag"

A===Too bold to be true

B==Similar to our takeaway

C==Murky

D=="Danger", passage says to continue the development

E==False since people did invest in the previously introduced scheme irrelevant of the source.

So B can be good choice.
You can, for example never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to!
Join the discussion