IMO D

I think the answer should be A.

All things considered, let's see the original argument. The original argument says that the greatest number of people employed will be in the category of low paying service occupations. Yet the share for low-paying service occupations will remain the same. How could this be possible? This could only be possible if the original share of low-paying service occupations was higher. Since to maintain that share, it would definitely need the largest increase in number. The only option that points to this is A.

Not sure how much "expert" help in needed. Chufus has it correct in the post above...

The stimulus tells us that "the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations." Okay so that means that in terms of an absolute number the low-paying service jobs will have the largest increase.

Yet the stimulus also tells us that "This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment" Now the question is, how can you add the most people and yet not increase your percentage? This is sort of like a paradox. We can explain this with ratios. So if the ratio of "dogs: cats: fish" at the pet store is is "10: 13: 45" and if we add some pets you can see that even if we add more fish than cats or dogs, this will only maintain the ratio. In fact we could add 90 fish to only 26 cats and 20 dogs and the ration would stay the same.

This means that are more fish as compared to cats and dogs. Now the stimulus offers another clue - "the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share." So we already know that as an absolute number there are more low-paying service jobs added than high paying service jobs. And yet, the high-paying will increase its percentage. This means there must have been fewer high paying than low-paying to start with.

I liked this question and I do not say all the time.