Critical Reasoning

Dear Friends,

I was having problems in answering the following question.

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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


Please help.

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.

I think here it is an obvious D. The government is trying to increase savings. If the money that is being deposited into these accounts is the same money that was in savings accounts in other programs, it shows that the saving have not increased. They have just been transferred from one account into the other, and the overall savings remain the same. So essentially the overall savings of the population of Levaska have not increased.

What is the original answer?

OA is option D

+1 D. Aggregate savings is not increased when people transfer money from one type of savings account to another type of savings account.