The government of the country of Marina has recently implemented sever

For paradox questions, it is useful to rephrase the question: Why would it be, given a change in immigration law, that the government expects unemployment to go down in the near future even though immigration is one of the causes of unemployment?

A) This could be a good choice. Keep for now.

B) This might be true, but it is too vague. Impacting the unemployment rate how? Does it impact in a way that it reduces, which would help solve the paradox, or does it impact in a way that increases the unemployment rate, which would deepen the paradox. This cannot be the answer, since it is not stated what type of impact there would be.

C) This is also a contender. Keep for now.

D) This is a possible effect of the change in migration law, but does not help resolve the paradox. Even if this were true, it does not impact the argument in any way.

E) This is a neat trap - notice that it says "in the past few years". This means that it cannot be the answer, since the law change was recent, and the government expects the change in unemployment to occur in the following months. This means that the partnerships with the top universities was there even before the law change, and since we know unemployment was high in the country even with these partnerships, it cannot be the reason why unemployment would go down in the following months.

A vs. C

C is very close to the answer, but it is further away than A. C tells us that many companies will now stop outsourcing certain types of jobs. This could very well be true, but not solve the paradox. Imagine a case where the citizens do not wish to take these jobs, would the unemployment reduce? No. We need to make the second assumption that the citizens will want to apply for these jobs for the expectation of the decrease in unemployment rate to be true.

A is much better than C. A directly tells us that, some people were seeking employment outside of the country but were not able to because of a law requiring them to work in Marina for at least 10 years. If this restriction was removed, then we can expect those people to seek jobs outside of the country, which would make the governments expectation of a decrease in unemployment rate somewhat more sound.

A is the correct answer.

I think D is wrong because it contradicts the fact present in the passage.
Also I thought that we have to give explanation for the new regulation of immigration not another one regarding employment for 10 years.
I can't find any one option to be best of 5
Can anybody please help