Critical Reasoning

Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist's reasoning?

A) Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies' decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages.

B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees.

C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs.

D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.

E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.


I believe the economist's conclusion is :- To reduce personnel costs during recessions, companies are likely to lay off employees
Supporting statements from premise:- layoffs damage morale less, since the aggrieved employees have, after all, left.
Addnl Info :- a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone.

Now can someone explain why is D incorrect ? And also why A is better over D ?