Margaret: According to a report provided by the National Emp

Gist of what Margaret says : A former police officer in Litia will have a more quantified desire/inclination to become a security officer, than someone(Litian) who is from a non-police background.

Gist of what Sam says : The current strength of all the security officers in Litia has 80% of people who have not been in the Litian Police force,however the remaining 20% have served in the Litian police force at some point of time in the past.

The bone of contention between both :

Likely to do something doesn' always result in DOING that. To paraphrase what Margaret said, if given an option among say Job A, Job B and Job C(Security Officer), a retired police officer(Litian) is more likely to choose Job C.However,it is by no means,binding on him/her.Also, they both might be talking about 2 different sets of people.


(A)It shows that being able to become a security officer does not always result in becoming one.
It is no-where mentioned that the retired police officers were not able to qualify as security officers.

(B)It provides additional evidence in support of Margaret’s claim.
Evidence in support of Margaret's claim would have been if Sam would have stated something like this : Out of the given strength of retired police officers(Litian), 90% are currently security officers.

(C)It is compatible with Margaret’s claim.
Correct.Maybe there are 100 security officers in Litia. 80 are from a non-police background and among these 80 people, maybe some are not even from Litia itself.However,20 were in the Litian police force.
Say the retired police officers in Litia are 30 in number. Thus, out of 30, 20 are security officers now.So,what Sam states is compatible with Margaret's said.

(D)It provides statistical information that proves Margaret’s claim incorrect.
This option would be correct,had Sam said something like this :
Out of the given strength of retired police officers(Litian), 90 % have expressed an interest in not becoming a security officer.

(E)It shows the distinction between what is necessary to become a security officer and what is sufficient to become one.
No such thing is evident.

IMO C.