Economist: Some policymakers believe that our country’s continued economic growth requires a higher level of personal savings than we currently have. A recent legislative proposal would allow individuals to set up savings accounts in which interest earned would be exempt from taxes until money is withdrawn from the account. Backers of this them was diverted from other personal savings, and the overall level of personal savings was unchanged.
What this question is testing
Backers' Position
Some policymakers want to grow personal savings to support economic growth. Their plan: tax-incentive savings accounts. They claim two things — the plan will increase money available for banks to loan, and it will not cost the government much in lost tax revenue.
Author's Move
The economist quietly torpedoes the first claim. Past programs like this did not actually grow total savings — people just moved their existing savings into the new tax-favored accounts. So the "more money for banks to loan" claim turns out to be empirically false (or at least unsupported by past results).
Evaluate
The author is not saying the program is unfeasible, not attacking the people behind it, and not arguing we do not need more savings. The author is going after one specific factual claim the proposal rests on — that it will boost savings. That is exactly what "challenging a premise" means.
Goal
Pick the answer that says: the author challenges a premise of the proposal.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.