So here is my understanding1. Country Y is producing few graduates in the Finance field.[Premise]
2. SimInc, opted to hire graduates from nonfinance backgrounds and then train them for 1 year in finance.[Premise]
3. SimInc will require substantial investment but this strategy will save more money. [Conclusion]
Question stemWe need to find the option which explains the conclusion.
Now let's look into Options(A) The shortage of qualified employees has made it more expensive to hire graduates with finance degrees than to provide a year of training to graduates in other fields. [
Eliminate as this does not answer that 1 year of training would be a huge investment]
(B) Companies that hire graduates with degrees in mathematics and physics are also finding that the number of qualified candidates has decreased substantially.
[
Eliminate, this option does not answer the conclusion]
(C) The first year that SimIncís strategy was in effect, the company's average productivity per employee was nearly 10 percent lower than it had been the previous year. [
Eliminate, this might help in understanding how the company might bear loss but does not tell about heavy investment and long term profitability]
(D) Firms that are not as well capitalized as SimInc would not have the ability to undertake a strategy such as SimIncís.
[
Eliminate as it does not tell about how we arrived at the conclusion].
(E) To ensure that their competition would not take advantage of their training program, SimInc required that new hires commit to a five-year contract with the company in addition to signing an agreement by which they would not work in the industry for two years after that.
[
Correct, this does tell us how the training program will save more money in the long term].