The study reports three facts about the 1,000 people surveyed: (1) 70% would not work for a company with a bad reputation even if unemployed (so 30% would), (2) nearly 90% would consider leaving their current job for a role at a company with an excellent reputation, and (3) those willing to work for a bad-rep company would, on average, require a doubling of salary to make the move. The passage supports conclusions about how reputation and salary affect workers’ choices, not about representativeness or unrelated behavior.
Eliminate wrong answers:
(B) The study’s sample size and results do not by themselves show the sample is representative of all U.S. workers. The passage gives no sampling information—so (B) is unsupported.
(C) The survey says nothing about willingness to do unethical acts, so (C) is irrelevant and unsupported.
(D) The data contradicts a blanket claim that salary takes precedence: 70% refuse bad-rep firms even when unemployed, and nearly 90% would leave for an excellent reputation—both show reputation often outweighs salary. So (D) is false.
(A) Numerically true but weak: since 30% would work for bad-rep companies and ~90% would consider leaving for excellent ones, the overlap must be at least 20% (by the pigeonhole principle), so the statement “at least 10%” is true. But it’s a tame numerical consequence and not the strongest general conclusion the data supports.
(E) This matches the study’s implications: most people prefer good reputation, and those willing to accept bad reputation require substantially higher pay. Therefore, to attract top talent a company would reasonably need either an excellent reputation or the ability to pay much higher salaries. This general policy conclusion follows directly from the reported facts and is the strongest supported inference.
Answer: E