Critical Reasoning

As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A) The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to justify; the second states a judgment that is used in support of a justification for that practice.
B) The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument's explanation of that practice.
C) The first introduces a practice that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the practice cannot achieve its objective.
D) The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.
E) The first introduces a consideration supporting a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides evidence for concluding that the policy should be abandoned.

OA is D.
Source: GMATPrep

will go with D

You could argue that the first bolded portion is either a practice or a policy, but we can eliminate E because it's not a consideration.

A says the second part is a judgment that supports that practice. The bolded portion says that the goals of the practice can be achieved in other ways, so it's not really offering support.

B says the second part is part of the explanation of that practice. The explanation actually occurs in the first line of the stimulus.

C says the second part provides evidence that the practice cannot achieve its objective. C says that the objectives can be achieved in other ways, but it's not saying the current practice can't also achieve it.

D says the second part supports the idea that the policy is not needed. It says that the objectives can be achieved in other ways, so it could be argued that the current policy is unnecessary.

IMO D. OA pls?

Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:You could argue that the first bolded portion is either a practice or a policy, but we can eliminate E because it's not a consideration.

A says the second part is a judgment that supports that practice. The bolded portion says that the goals of the practice can be achieved in other ways, so it's not really offering support.

B says the second part is part of the explanation of that practice. The explanation actually occurs in the first line of the stimulus.

C says the second part provides evidence that the practice cannot achieve its objective. C says that the objectives can be achieved in other ways, but it's not saying the current practice can't also achieve it.

D says the second part supports the idea that the policy is not needed. It says that the objectives can be achieved in other ways, so it could be argued that the current policy is unnecessary.

thank for explanation. I get this right but too long, 3 minutes.
I wish you to detail the process you do this bold phrase. after you understand the argument, realizing the structure of the argument. what do you do? did you check the description of the first bold phrase in 5 choices, then you eliminate 2 or 3 choices. Then you check the description of the second bold phrase then eliminate 2 remaining choices.

that is the process you do this bold phrase or you do the other process. pls, detail the process you do so that we can learn from you.