Top Law Schools

Cassie wants to reduce client loads. Melvin agrees that it is desirable, but says that it isn't feasible. For Cassie to counter Melvin then, we need a choice that shows how this could be feasible.
Correct answer is (A), which says reducing client loads would help recruit additional qualified agents, since reducing client loads would improve working conditions.
Now here's what I don't get. How can they reduce the client loads in the first place, if recruiting more agents is necessary to reduce client loads? In other words, the order should be: recruit more agents -> reduce client loads -> improve working conditions -> recruit more agents, and so on. So if they could recruit any agents in the current state, it would be much easier to recruit more agents in the future because of improved working conditions. But Melvin explicitly says recruiting more agents is out of the question. So if they can't recruit more now, (A) seems useless.

Thank you.

I totally see your position and to a point you're correct. However, we have to keep in mind why it's not feasible to reduce client loads. It's not feasible because it's difficult to recruit enough qualified agents. Answer choice (A) states that they will be able to hire more agents and thereby attacks the reason Melvin gives for why it's not feasible to reduce client loads.

(B) is a good effort but falls short. Just because the clients support this doesn't mean it's feasible.
(C) provides a reason to reduce client loads, but doesn't tell undermine the idea that it's not feasible.
(D) tells us what to do if we can't reduce client loads, but doesn't tell us that we can reduce client loads.
(E) says that we can't reduce client loads, this strengthens the argument.

Does that clear it up?