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

Five years ago, as part of a plan to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase the amount of money they put into savings,- The plan’s objective is: to encourage citizens of Levaska to increase their 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special savings accounts in which up to $3,000 a year can be saved with no tax due on the interest unless money is withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of sixty-five.- The plan: Launch of SSA (Special Savings Accounts) – if the money is not withdrawn before the age of 65, no tax on the interest amount for up to a principal amount of $3000 per year.

Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts, so the government’s plan is obviously working.- Since millions of dollars have accumulated in these SSAs, the author concludes that the government’s plan is working.

What is the government’s plan?

Launch SSA

What is the government’s goal?

To encourage citizens of Levaska to increase their savings.

When can we say that the government’s plan is working?

When the plan is leading to the goal. Or, in other words, when the launch of SSA is encouraging citizens of Levaska to increase their savings.

The Gap:

Can we be sure that the government’s plan is working, given that millions of dollars have accumulated in these SSAs?

If not, we have gaps in the argument.

Here are the gaps I can think of:

1. Money in these SSAs need not mean more savings. For example, the citizens could have diverted their savings from other modes of savings to these accounts.
2. More savings need not mean more savings of the citizens of Levaska. For example, there are probably non-citizens of Levaska living in Levaska. Maybe, these are the people who invested in these SSAs. In such a case, the plan (to increase citizens’ savings) is not working.

There can be more gaps in the argument. Can you think of any? I’d like to hear from you.





A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

Incorrect . This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.

Let me create a stronger version of this option:

A’: A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn a substantial amount of the money they had invested in the special accounts.

What is the impact of A’ on the argument?

No impact.

That 90% of the people have withdrawn 90% of the money they had invested in the special accounts also has NO IMPACT on the argument. Why? Because it’s given in the argument that millions of dollars are lying in these accounts. Thus, the savings seem to have increased. So, the plan (to increase savings) seems to be working.

The fact that savings have not increased to the level they could have increased has NO IMPACT on our plan.

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 . This option says that a particular category of workers (who already save money in long-term tax-free accounts that are offered through their workplace) cannot use SSAs.

This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.

Let me create a stronger version of this option.

B’: Most of the workers in Levaska cannot take advantage of the special savings accounts introduced by the government.

B’ also has NO IMPACT on the argument.

Even if 90% of the workers in Levaska cannot take advantage of these SSAs, the argument will not be impacted. Why? Because it’s given in the argument that millions of dollars are lying in these accounts. Thus, the savings seem to have increased. So, the plan (to increase savings) seems to be working.

Given that the argument has already given that there is an amount lying in SSAs, we’re not concerned with what proportion of the population has contributed to that amount (whether it’s 1% of the population or 90% of the population). Irrespective of the proportion of the population that contributed to the amounts in SSAs, the savings seem to have increased. Thus, this option is 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.

Incorrect. This option says that the tax rate applicable on interest earned from money in the REGULAR savings account depends on the income bracket of the account holder. (Please note that this option is about regular savings accounts. For special savings accounts, we’re given that interest is anyway tax-free if the money is not withdrawn before the account holder reaches the age of 65.)

Thus, some people would need to pay higher taxes than others.

This option has NO IMPACT on the argument.

Whether people have different or the same tax rates on their interest income is irrelevant to the argument.

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

Correct. This option is around the first gap we identified. If people are just transferring their savings from another mode of savings to SSAs, then money in SSAs doesn’t mean more savings. Thus, this option creates doubt on the conclusion that the plan is working.

Please remember that the question asks to find an option that weakens or creates doubt on the argument. We’re not necessarily looking for an option that demolishes the argument.

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

Incorrect. This option says that many economists (who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful) criticized the plan when the plan was introduced.

Whether these people criticized the plan at the time of its introduction or not has NO IMPACT on our argument.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Let’s begin by looking at the details of the argument.

1) Five years ago, Levaska’s government introduced special savings accounts
2) purpose - to encourage citizens to increase the amount of money they put into savings
3) special savings accounts- $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.
4) Millions of dollars have accumulated in the special accounts
Conclusion- the government’s plan is obviously working.

We have to find an option that attacks the conclusion that the government’s plan is working.

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

It is already stated in the premise that millions of dollars have been accumulated in the special accounts. Option A attacks the premise and not the conclusion and is hence incorrect.

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

In spite of this, millions of dollars have been accumulated in the special accounts. It does not weaken the conclusion that the government’s plan is working. Eliminate B

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.

This just means that the interest rate on tax depends on the income bracket of the account holder. It does not weaken the conclusion. Eliminate C.

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

The government’s plan was to encourage citizens to increase the amount of money they put into savings. The conclusion says that by introducing the special accounts, the government has succeeded in its plan.
Option D says that many Levaskans who already had long-term savings transferred those savings into the special accounts. This means that there has been no increase in the amounts deposited and that the money deposited in special accounts was already deposited in long-term savings accounts before that. This weakens the conclusion that the government’s plan is working. D is the correct answer.

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

Option E says that many economists who criticized the government’s plan earlier now claim that it has been successful.
This strengthens the conclusion. Eliminate E.

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

How I broke down the argument?
- Plan: Increase savings via a special saving account.
- Other Info.: Incentive is no tax on these special accounts
- Conclusion: Million in special accounts, therefore the plan works

A. A substantial number of Levaskans have withdrawn at least some of the money they had invested in the special accounts.
This does not weaken our conclusion - but it does weaken the set-up of the special savings account - some people are withdrawing, maybe the incentive is not good enough. But the passage states there is already MILLIONS, so we can conclude this is not a big/material issue.


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.
This does not weaken our conclusion - but it could be misconstrued to be relevant because it is saying that there is a COMPETING tax free accounts via a person's workplace - therefore there is a TRANCHE of savings missing. Again, the passage and our conclusion states that there is already MILLIONS, so we can conclude this is not a big/material issue.


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.
This is not relevant, we only care about special interest accounts and HOW they have accumulated "millions", this only repeats information that we've been given

D. Many Levaskans who already had long-term savings have steadily been transferring those savings into the special accounts.
CORRECT - This WEAKENS the "millions" already saved that indicate success. What IF people aren't bringing in new money, they are just transferring existing savings - is the ravings rate nationally going to go up??

E. Many of the economists who now claim that the government’s plan has been successful criticized it when it was introduced
Perhaps even a slight strengthener because reputable sources like economists are saying the plan is good