Hi GulfTube,You've actually put your finger on the exact knob this question turns. This is the same variant avigutman tackled earlier in the thread (the "some - most" swap), so let's run it carefully.
Here's the key: the stem doesn't ask whether the plan
works at all - it asks what "raises the most serious doubt regarding the
effectiveness" of the plan. The word
effectiveness builds
degree right into the goal. We're not grading the plan pass/fail; we're asking how well it achieves its purpose of increasing money for development loans.
Once you see that, watch what happens as we turn the quantity word:
-
"some" won't increase savings - that leaves the rest (possibly almost everyone) increasing savings. The plan still pumps lots of new money in. No real doubt. - not a weakener.
-
"most" won't increase savings - now the large majority ignore the incentive, and only a small slice respond. The pool of new money is small, so the plan is
far less effective at its stated job. - that
does raise doubt.
So your instinct - "even a few depositors means
some money becomes available" - is true, but it answers the wrong question.
Some money trickling in is exactly what makes a plan
ineffective, even if it's not totally useless. As avigutman put it: if we learned only
one taxpayer would respond, we'd absolutely doubt the plan's effectiveness.
Your own escape hatch - "unless the goal were to increase funds
significantly" - is already baked in by the word
effectiveness. You don't need the passage to add "significantly"; a plan that barely moves the needle is by definition not effective.
That's also why
(A) still beats a hypothetical "most" version of
(C):
(A) says the new money is
always siphoned off by consumers - a guaranteed, complete drain - whereas "most won't save" only shrinks the inflow.
(A) attacks the mechanism harder.
GulfTube
if option (C) said "Even with tax incentives, most people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings". Then still it wouldn't weaken the goal of the argument, right? Because as long as even few people increase their retirement savings, more money becomes available for business lending. Had the argument's goal been to increase money available for business lending
significantly and the passage said that no person is a outlier who deposits a huge sum to retirement savings, then most people choosing not to deposit in retirement savings would be a weakener of achieving the goal.
GMATNinja please share thoughts.