Official answer by Manhatten Prep:
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Out of scope. Pay has nothing to do with the number of errors. It would be wrong to assume that a higher paid editor is better or more likely to care about errors.
(B) Out of scope. How long it has been in business doesn't tell us about errors.
(C) Very close to our anticipation! We got lucky (predicting weaken answers is imprecise). If this is true, then the number of corrections compared to the competitor doesn't tell us that there actually exist more errors, since the Gazette is just more likely to follow up on them.
(D) Tempting. However, this answer is about what happens before publications, whereas our premise is about post-publication checking. We know there are more corrections issued, so, if anything, this answer tells us that we should hire new editors without making it more likely that we actually have fewer errors than before.
(E) Out of scope. The number of reporters doesn't necessarily impact the number of factual errors in the paper. While you could argue that fewer reporters might lead to overworking increasing errors, that's several jumps - maybe the Gazette fired the people who were the most factually inaccurate!