GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 26 May 2019, 16:46

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 477
Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 27 Jan 2019, 06:39
7
1
37
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:44) correct 32% (02:04) wrong based on 1230 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.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A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.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

Originally posted by mymba99 on 14 May 2008, 11:46.
Last edited by Bunuel on 27 Jan 2019, 06:39, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1324
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2008, 14:25
2
saravalli 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.


D for me.
The amount of money saved is the same if D is true, so plan is not really working. No money has been saved.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 178
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2008, 19:55
4
saravalli 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.


I choose D.

I re-read each answer 3 times. To weaken the argument, you have to pick the answer that shows either a pre-existing condition allowing the current condition to exist, or an outside variable causing the current condition to come forth. D accomplishes that.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 100
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2008, 20:39
1
Quote:
I re-read each answer 3 times. To weaken the argument, you have to pick the answer that shows either a pre-existing condition allowing the current condition to exist, or an outside variable causing the current condition to come forth. D accomplishes that.

Yes D is correct. It only states why govt plan is not working. That is million accumulate to these accounts from other accounts and not due to new savings.
_________________
Many people dream, but some wake up and work towards it.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 680
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2008, 21:20
1
Argument: Special account increased the savings.
Weaken: If increase in account is due to transfer of other savings deposits then will weakens the argument.


A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts. [Definitely does not address increase in savings - eliminate it]
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. [Strengthens the argument – eliminate it]
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. [Tax and Tax bracket is out of scope – eliminate it]
D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. [Hold it]
E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced. [Out of scope – eliminate it]

Answer: D
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 540
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2011, 00:24
3
1
Quote:
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.


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
_________________
Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1685
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 4
WE: Analyst (Retail)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2016, 23:10
mymba99 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.


A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts. - Incorrect. 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. - Incorrect. We already know that millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts. The fact that workers cannot take advantage of the special account does not weaken the fact that millions of dollars are already saved in the special accounts.

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. - Incorrect. Irrelevant

D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts. - Correct. Millions of dollars were already saved in different accounts. Now, the amount is just transferred from different accounts to special account. The plan was to encourage savings. But here the savings are just transferred and the net savings has not increased.

E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced - Incorrect. Irrelevant

Answer: D
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 11
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Finance, International Business
GPA: 3.57
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2016, 11:29
mymba99 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.


My answer choices were down to B and D.

In B it says that the workers who already had savings were no longer are eligible for the special accounts' benefits. Hence workers would no longer bother to move the money. No usage of special accounts means this statement is irrelevant.

In D workers are using the special accounts but they are just transferring their previous savings to special accounts to get the benefits. Hence the Government's plan is not the reason for the workers' savings.

D is the answer choice for me.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 48
Reviews Badge
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 19:28
Funny enough, none of the responses here are valid to eliminate B.

Imo, Both B and D are correct.

People saying B is irrelevant has the following arguments:

- B doesn't mention special saving accounts.
Yes it does, it says that workers CAN'T USE it. Thus the plan to get people TO USE IT fails.

- We don't know how many workers are % of the population.
Yea..confirmation bias right up the hoohoo. "Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings" indicates a huge % of the population? If we are going by assumptions in the Western world. I would argue that most of the population go to WORK and most of the people working have some sort of employee benefit savings account (defined benefit pension plan anyone?) By this logic, B actually wins.

_________________
Insanity at its finest.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Mar 2017
Posts: 11
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2017, 09:17
A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
The Levaskans withdrew some money- but still amount in saving account is increased before the plan was introduced. does not weaken

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.
Levaskan cannot take advantage is irrevelant- does not weaken

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.
Does not talk about any saving increased or decreased- does not weaken

D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
This does not increase the saving, because here Levaskans already had saving --- WEAKEN

E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced
NO details about Saving - Does not weaken
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 144
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 May 2019, 02:19
mymba99 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.



The plan was to increase the amount of money , put into savings. We need to show that "the government’s plan is NOT working." That means " the amount of money is not increasing".

Option D says "Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts."

So if Levaskans are just transferring savings into the the special accounts then the amount of money , put into savings is not increasing ; the money remains same and it just gets transferred from its current account to the special account.
So the "the amount of money is not increasing". We can show that "the government’s plan is NOT working.

Option D is the correct answer.
Please give me kudo s if you liked my explanation.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to   [#permalink] 09 May 2019, 02:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.