Critical Reasoning

6.20
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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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 think it should be D.

D implies that there is no additional savings. THe citizens already had the money in the savings and habve onnly been moving them across accounts. So logically, there is no extra savings.

Pls, help, why A is wrong

IMO A is wrong because -

The government's objective was to increase the money in savings and from the concluding line it is clear that a lot of money did go into this special savings account.

As per 'A', substantial number of people withdrew at least some money. This in no way indicates that people did not start saving because of the government initiative. Hence it is not enough to state (based on A) that government failed in its objective.

I still do not understand why A is wrong. pls help

Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working

In option D people are trasforing money from the exisiting accounts to the special accounts.

Gmat09_5ALL wrote:6.20
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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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.

What is the source of the question Gmat09?

Should be D

D strengthens the argument, does not weaken it.

JeffB wrote:D strengthens the argument, does not weaken it.

I think it should be either C or D.
D looks a good option

Pls, help explain, why A is wrong

I fell for the trap but I see it now...and obviously its too late.

1.) Govt wants citizens to increase the $ they put into savings.

2.) A is tricky as it states 'substantial', however D states that citizens have been transferring money from 1 savings account to another, meaning they are not increasing their savings but only balancing/allocating it.

F*** the GMAC/ETS for creating this question

Gmat09_5ALL wrote:6.20
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.

Is it not B???

Pls, explain why A is wrong. A said that a number of people take out money. this is weakening.

pls, help me out.

pls, help me why A is wrong