作者：英吉
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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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.
题目分析：A说已经有很多人从账户里面取钱了，有点关系，留着。B说这些人不能充分利用这个account，显然没说，杀。C说制定rate的标准，没说过，杀。D说这块的人已经把long-term savings都转到special accounts里面了，沾边，留着。E说很多经济学家批评这个计划，没说，干掉。剩下两个，我们看看问题，问的是 most seriously weakens ，一个是拿出来至少一些钱（取出来也是先存进去了，那是支持还是驳斥？），一个是把long-term savings的钱存进去了，那个能weaken，显然是D。
