Weaken--Levaska

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

Weaken--Levaska

by amysky_0205 » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:47 pm
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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.

OA:D

can someone explain this? thank u so much!
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:31 am
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:3 members

by aman88 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:59 am
IMO D

(B) Conclusion is: Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government's plan is obviously working.

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.

Or A has caused B. To weaken, you need to say, *'No, A hasn't caused B, C has caused B.' If C has caused B, then the conclusion is weakened? YES!

Choice D says 'Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily transferred money in those special accounts.' This is exactly what we prephrased*.
Therefore, D.

Thanks.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 2:27 pm
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by Sapana » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:46 pm
amysky_0205 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.

OA:D

can someone explain this? thank u so much!

My thought process for this question:

premise 1: Gov thinks people aren't saving enough, therefore establishes this saving plan which no tax deal
premise 2: lots of money is being collected, therefore Gov. thinks plan is working. According to Gov, their saving plan encouraged more people to sign up for such saving accounts
to weaken: we should look for answer that says that gov's plan actually didnt actually increase the saving

Answer D hits at the right spot. it says, its the people who already have been saving money are tranferring their funds to this new gov implemented tax free saving account, not the new people who did not save in the first place.

Hope it helps!