Critical Reasoning

Our charity is beginning to fund expensive new schools in order to help young people gain the skills needed in the job market. Some groups complain that we are not being efficient with our donors' money because there are schools already in existence that have low enrollments and plenty of empty seats. But these people are wrong. Most of the current schools teach theoretical subjects that are useless in our economy. The new schools will teach important skills that students can use to get jobs.

Which one of the following is a required assumption of the argument above?

A Using our funds to help current schools teach more valuable skills would not be a more efficient way to help young people get jobs.
B Our charity would rather help the current schools than build new schools in scenarios where the two options are equally efficient.
C If the current schools taught subjects that came closer to meeting the needs of the job market, employers would relax their hiring requirements in order to hire students who graduate from these schools.
D Once the new schools funded by our charities are completed, they will not also have low enrollments.
E Our donors have mandated that prior to funding expensive schools, our charity must prove that there aren't any other options that are a more efficient way to meet our goal.

Upon reading the question, we realize that our job is to find an assumption. Before doing so, we must identify the conclusion.

In this case the conclusion seems to be that the charity is being efficient with donor's money. Why? Because currently existing schools do not teach the skills necessary. Said schools are too theoretical. New schools will be required.

What's the assumption? Well, the best choice seems to be (A), although I must confess a profound distaste for the option. If we negate (A), it seems to indicate that working with current schools would be a more efficient way to help young people get jobs. None of the other answers even come close. However, I note that the goal of the charity is to ensure that the young people get "the skills needed in the job market." (A), on the other hand, does not talk about the skills needed but merely "better skills" and helping young people get jobs. This is a subtle difference in objectives and phrasing that sits wrong with me. Nevertheless, it does seem to be better than any other alternative. We are required to assume that these "better skills" are "the skills needed in the job market" and that our real goal is not ensuring that young people have the requisite skills but rather that they get jobs.