(A)’s conclusion is off – it argues that we should find a different course of action, whereas the stimulus simply argues against taking a particular course of action.

(A) also lacks the long-term / short-term dynamic. This on its own doesn’t suffice to tank the answer choice (there’s a world where a right answer would also drop that dynamic and just focus on upsides and downsides in general), but it’s enough to move on during your initial run through the answer choices.

(B) weighs an upside (easier recruiting) of an option against a downside (payroll increases) of that option and concludes the option is good. This is the inverse of our principle, which (among other things) involves a downside outweighing an upside, making the option bad.

Here’s our match. We’ve got an option (using maintenance funds for construction) that’s bad (unwise) despite short-term upsides (immediate benefit) because of the long-term downsides (greater cost in the long run).

Note that the order of these ideas doesn’t match the order of ideas in the stimulus. That’s completely fine.

(D) comes out in favor of an option with long-term downsides because of its short-term upsides. That's no good – our stimulus hates long-term downsides.

(E) lacks the long-term / short-term dynamic, which on its own doesn’t suffice to tank the answer choice (there’s a world where a right answer would also drop that dynamic and just focus on upsides and downsides in general), but should be enough to move on during your initial run through the answer choices.

A deeper reason for (E)’s wrongness is its narrow focus on practicality. Our stimulus offers a short-term upside, a long-term downside, and concludes the option is bad. (E) offers an upside that isn’t about practicality (getting a certain thrill), a downside that is about practicality (can’t carry cargo), and concludes the option is impractical.