Attrition

[nervesofsteel]

Last year a large firm set a goal of decreasing its workforce by 25 percent. Three divisions, totaling 25 percent of its workforce at that time, were to be eliminated and no new people hired. These divisions have since been eliminated and no new people have joined the firm, but its workforce has decreased by only 15 percent.
Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the difference in the planned versus the actual reduction in the workforce?
(A) The three divisions that were eliminated were well run and had the potential to earn profits.
(B) Normal attrition in the retained divisions continued to reduce staff because no new people were added to the firm.
(C) Some of the employees in the eliminated divisions were eligible for early retirement and chose that option.
(D) As the divisions were being eliminated some of their employees were assigned to other divisions.
(E) Employees in the retained divisions were forced to work faster to offset the loss of the eliminated divisions.

[thephoenix]

IMO D

firms claims that removing three div will achieve the task of reduction of 25 % of its workforce as these divisons consist of 25% of its workforce
but if people are being transferred to other division willreduce the strength of those three div and hence will bring down the actual reduction from 25% to say 15%

OA pls

[vijay_venky]

D a clear winner, as nothing other than than that option contributes to the less decrease

[pkw209]

D

Gimme the answer please!

[dmitriyaleyev]

Clearly D