In the early nineteenth century, industrialists preferred to hire peop

The right answer is A.

Premise: when more than 2000 people applied to work at one New England mill, only 30 of the 150 who were hired had previous experience in weaving.
Conclusion: industrialists preferred to hire people with no weaving experience to work in their new textile mills.

The argument concludes that industrialists preferred to hire people with no weaving experience to work in their new textile mills on the premise that out of the 150 people hired to work at the mill from more than 2000 applicants, only 30 had previous experience in weaving.
In order for the author's argument to hold water, then it has to be assumed that more than 30 applicants have weaving skills. What is the rationale? The conclusion of the argument suggests that there is a preference for hiring people with no weaving experience. How can there be a preference when out of the 2000 applicants only 30 had weaving experience? If only the 30 hired people with weaving experience are the only applicants out of the 2000 applicants with experience in weaving, then this argument has no premise, and in fact, the argument falls apart. So, for the argument to be credible, then it has to be assumed that more than 30 applicants had weaving experience.

A: some of the unsuccessful applicants to the textile mill had experience in weaving. This is the correct answer as it is in line with what is stated above.
B: the nature of the work at the new textile mills made previous experience in weaving of no advantage in a worker. The argument above can only have some credibility if previous experience in weaving is an advantage. Meanwhile, the question stem specifically states that the statistics cited above provide no evidence supporting the author's contention unless it is assumed that. Hence, the correct answer choice must proceed based on the statistics cited in the argument as a premise. B does not provide any link to the statistics. B is incorrect.

C: the 30 successful applicants with weaving experience had no experience of weaving in textile mills. This is incorrect. So let's say that the 30 successful applicants indeed have no experience, the argument above would make no sense if none of the 2000 applicants have weaving experience. On the other hand, if some of the applicants have weaving experience, then the argument is valid. Since both possibilities exist in C, C is incorrect.

D: the industrialist's preference for workers without previous experience was economically motivated. Just as in B, D makes no mention to the statistics cited above in argument in line with the question stem. D is incorrect.

E: prior to the nineteenth century, there was no weaving done on a large industrial scale. E is also incorrect. It provides a piece of information that is irrelevant to the argument. It does not reconcile the statistics provided by the author in line with the question stem.