GWD6-Q20

[himorgan]

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special savings accounts in ahich up to $3000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the amount holder reaches the age of sia-five. Millions of dollars have acculumated 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A.A substantial number of Levaskana have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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 st which interest earned on the money deposited in regular savings accounts is taxed depends on the income brack 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.

這題目真長
我主要是要問(D)他主要weaken的理由
是因為許多人把長期變短期
所以違背政策原意嗎
但是這不是提早領的話要課稅
應該不會發生啊
我想請大家說說自己的想法
雖然我覺得可以算對啦
可是不想用硬背的ㄟ
感謝

[Calvin]

結論說政府的計劃會成功
要反駁政府的計劃
請先了解政府的計劃是什麼？---->a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings.....

D說有長期儲蓄帳戶的人會固定的把錢轉到SPECIAL ACCOUNTS

代表這個計劃並不會使整體儲蓄的錢增加，只是促使人民把儲蓄把A移到B而己

因此，也就反駁了政府原本設定的計劃

[himorgan]

感謝這位大大
沒注意到這邊

[myron]

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special savings accounts in ahich up to $3000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the amount holder reaches the age of sia-five. Millions of dollars have acculumated 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A.A substantial number of Levaskana have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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 the 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.

請問一下答(C)的意思??

[Calvin]

C大慨是說

一般儲蓄帳戶利息的課徵稅率是根據帳戶持有人的所得收入來決定

FYI

[Pudding]

真強... 翻得很簡潔....

[michelle610]

那麼為什麼B選項不行ㄋ 如果workers已經有長期免稅的帳戶ㄌ 那麼她們就不可能會把錢轉到政府的special account啦 那政府的計畫不就也不會成功ㄇ

[Calvin]

B無法反駁結論

B只提到有long-term saving accounts的人不能享有special saving accounts的優惠

這個訊息是沒辦法反駁結論的！

因為不知道這類人有多少，如果佔的比例很多的話，那才有可能會反駁結論；反之，如果佔的比例很少，那是不影響結論的！

FYI

[shena]

不好意思...那請問A又為何錯誤? 很多人把錢從special account提領出來那整體儲蓄金額不就會減少了嗎?

[sklpeng]

我個人覺得A選項是來亂的
ETS有時會有這一招

題幹中明確說了
Millions of dollars have acculumated in the special accounts
以時態(完成式)來看,是個fact

但A選項是說大家至少都提了些錢(at least some)出去
(事實上這個some的範圍界定也有問題)
如果真如您的推論所說(special account減少)
根本不會產生最後的結果(上述的fact)
直接與題幹結果抵觸的選項
您能選嗎?

Open to discussion

[Calvin]

同意sklpeng精僻的講解

[維尼]

我個人覺得A選項是來亂的
ETS有時會有這一招

題幹中明確說了
Millions of dollars have acculumated in the special accounts
以時態(完成式)來看,是個fact

但A選項是說大家至少都提了些錢(at least some)出去
(事實上這個some的範圍界定也有問題)
如果真如您的推論所說(special account減少)
根本不會產生最後的結果(上述的fact)
直接與題幹結果抵觸的選項
您能選嗎?

Open to discussion

我自己做的時候選到A 去了
覺得A選項證明了人們不是受政策的吸引而存錢
(所以他們會提錢出來用 :p)
所以也算證明政府政策失效...

不過跟答案D比起來
的確不夠好 *嘆*

[Pudding]

我自己做的時候選到A 去了
覺得A選項證明了人們不是受政策的吸引而存錢
(所以他們會提錢出來用 :p)
所以也算證明政府政策失效...

不過跟答案D比起來
的確不夠好 *嘆*

雖然CR是選最好的不是選唯一正確的,
但個人覺得就算不考慮D, A選項也並未起到weaken的作用.
政府鼓勵的是人們把錢存入special accounts當中, 選項A則表示有相當一部份人從該special account中領錢出來.
這是相反的兩個方向, 不足以weaken原命題認為 政府政策是working的結論. 相反, 如果硬凹的話, 甚至可以說如果沒有存錢, 哪來的錢可以領, 是weakly support...!

另外則是題目只提到"政府政策是否有效" 的這一結論, 並沒有提到因何種原因存進去的錢才算是有效哦....

個人看法請繼續討論...

[cheyen]

是的應該是D
解釋了增加的存款大部分是通過市民轉帳而造成的，並不是受GOV鼓勵而造成新的存款。

[fannywu94]

Q20:
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.

A.A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

不好意思我想問一下(A)，當初竟然一看到A，很開心的就選了

因為看到文章中的那句話：Levaska’s government會做這件事情，除非戶頭持有人在65歲以前把錢領出來

而選項A說：有實際的數目顯示Levaskans的居民已經把投資在special accounts的錢領出來了，那這樣換句話說不就是證明政府的計畫沒辦法繼續做

想請教各位大大不曉得我的思路問題在哪裡？？嗚嗚∼救命阿。。我的邏輯真的不太行