IMO D as it correctly weaken the argument that it is the govt plan that has led to the increase in savings amongst people of Lavaska..

Yep D!

Hey

Can you check the OA again? B seems out of scope to me...
Premise: the government plans to increase the saving by introducing a special savings account
Premise: Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts
Conclusion: 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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts. -- this choice does not undermine the conclusion. it focuses on the money withdrawing of the citizens --->irrelevant
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 -- the fact that workers cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts can't weaken the conclusion; other people can still benefit from the government's plan!
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. -- the focus of this choice is interest rate, hence irrelevant
D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. -- this choice seems ok to me.
E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government's plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced. --this choice doesn't have any impact on the conclusion
_________________

There can be Miracles when you believe

Premise 1: 5 yrs ago, L's government plan to encourage L's citizens put more (increase) money in savings
Premise 2: Special savings account in which $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax on interest
Premise 3: If the money is withdrawn before the account holder read 65 age, interest will be taxed
Premise 4: Special accounts got million dollar
Conclusion: The plan (encouraging to put more money in bank) is good

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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts. => quite attack, but they do not withdraw all money. Savings accounts are still efficient in accumulate money
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. => totally irrelevant
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. => out of scope. We are talking about special ones
D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. => This one worked. It attack the plan, the money in banks did not increase significantly. Instead, it almost remained
E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced. => Strengthen and quite out of scope
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

D

Its D
_________________

+1 Kudos If found helpful..