PT8.S1.Q15 - economist: some policymakers believe

Seriousbird

This is a Method of Reasoning question.

I really need help in understanding why answer choice C is wrong. I understand why A is correct and why the other ones are wrong, my reasoning is below:

A) The premise is more people would put money in their savings accounts, the challenge is the past initiative with money being diverted from personal savings and net personal savings remaining unchanged.

The disagreement is with the author and a group of policymakers not "among policymakers".

C) I really don't know, this answer choice looks good to me. Isn't the author saying it is more likely to fail because of initiatives in the past did not bring about the change the policymakers desire. Would this answer choice be incorrect because it is too definite?

D) This one can be eliminated because we do not know that this group of policymakers are the same policymakers that advocated the past initiatives. Perhaps they were young kids during that time and not policymakers.

E) The author is not disputing the assumption that a program to encourage personal savings is needed, he is trying to dispute the fact that it will work. He indicates it is not likely to work because of attempts in the past that failed.

Accounts Playable

"Feasible" means viable, so if answer C was talking about the plan's consequence, then it becomes attractive. But, answer C is talking about the plan's implementation, which is entirely feasible. It is possible to create such tax-incentives plans and actually implement them (in fact, the argument states that this has been done before).

Also, answer C is incorrect because the author doesn't DEMONSTRATE that THIS plan's implementation is not feasible. The author talks about the failure of past plans, but what if this plan is different in some relevant respect? At best the author gives us pretty indirect/weak support for the current plan.

Seriousbird

Thank you so much for your response. I think my problem with C is I saw the word "implementation" and as you said interpreted it to be the effects of implementation, not the implementation itself.

Thank you for clarifying that for me!