The argument goes like this:
we get 400 alumni to mentor through phone-a-thon => without the phone-a-thon, we'll get 400 mentors fewer.For this logic to work, the assumption is such that
those people who agree throgh the calls would not alternatively agree to join the mentoring program.
A) Costs are out of scope of the argument.
B) Email is only one of other possibilities, and the argument focuses on the mentoring that follows, not just the communicating stage.
C) Looks good, since it shows that only few of the phone-a-thon mentors would consider other ways of joining.D) Also good, since it mentiones that phone-a-thon mentors are not joining simply because they're so passionate about mentoring.E) Not too bad, but we don't know how effective they already are, and if not, then even a substantial improvement would have no impact.
Comparing C and D, I'm more inclined to the latter. Let's use negation: (C)
not few alumni who mentor from phone-a-thon would sign up; and (D) the phone-a-thon mentors are generally
substantially more likely to sign up for mentoring. Indeed, from C, if quite some alumni would sign up through different channels, it may mean that we won't lose all of them without the phone outreach. However, what is 'few' and 'not few', how many is it? and does it mean we'll not lose all 400? Whereas D shows that those phone-called almni are generally eager to be mentors, even if an owl brings a handwritten invitation - and this would probably break the logic of the argument.
Therefore,
the answer is D.