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
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & 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.

levaska savings rate

Expert replies
by kushal.adhia » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:40 am
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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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.


I'm curious to know why the answer is not D.
OA is C



EXTREMELY EXTREMELY SORRY. THIS IS NOT THE QUESTION I HAD A PROBLEM WITH
I've re-posted the correct one... Sorry again
Last edited by kushal.adhia on Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by goyalsau » Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:30 am
kushal.adhia 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.


I'm curious to know why the answer is not D.
OA is C

I put in more than 5 minutes in this question and in the end marked D,
And when i saw C as a official answer, MY reaction Was OH MY GOD not again.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

option D
Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. I think MANY is the problem over here

Definition of many is
"Many" is an unspecified % and could just mean 1.

So if only one person is moving the saving then that does not make a big impact than the tax income as stated in option C.


https://www.beatthegmat.com/is-most-many ... t8823.html
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:39 am
goyalsau wrote:
kushal.adhia 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.


I'm curious to know why the answer is not D.
OA is C

I put in more than 5 minutes in this question and in the end marked D,
And when i saw C as a official answer, MY reaction Was OH MY GOD not again.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

option D
Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. I think MANY is the problem over here

Definition of many is
"Many" is an unspecified % and could just mean 1.

So if only one person is moving the saving then that does not make a big impact than the tax income as stated in option C.


https://www.beatthegmat.com/is-most-many ... t8823.html
the answer is indeed D, not C, recheck the OA
Join the discussion

by g000fy » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:18 pm
I picked D. I googled to confirm the OA. Found D on another board.
Join the discussion

by goyalsau » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:55 am
kushal.adhia 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.


I'm curious to know why the answer is not D.
OA is C



EXTREMELY EXTREMELY SORRY. THIS IS NOT THE QUESTION I HAD A PROBLEM WITH
I've re-posted the correct one... Sorry again
What's the correct Answer of this question?
C or D.

g000fy said that official answer is D.
So what's the correct Answer?
Join the discussion