I went on line to check if my pay was in my bank account . To my amazement I discovered that not only had I been paid, but a company I'd never worked for had also paid me! I know I would have been beside myself   if my own salary was not in my account, so I tried to get the money back to the right person. Easier said than done. The bank couldn't help as it "wasn't a bank problem." The human-resource department at the company that paid me was unable to help as I didn't have enough details. I rang the bank again. Thankfully I had a sympathetic call operator who gave me a name, so I again rang the company "Daniel" worked for. I expected the bank would contact me to arrange to take the money from my account and repay Daniel. I heard nothing for a month and the money remained in my account when Daniel called, explaining he'd tried to get back his money but had been unsuccessful as neither the bank nor his company felt it was their error. He had rung to ask if I could speak to the bank, but after chatting for a few minutes we realized we could probably fix this problem ourselves. We decided I would take the money from my account and he would pick it up from me. Due to my busy job I was unable to meet Daniel personally but he left me a lovely bottle of wine in exchange for what was rightfully his. I never had any intention of keeping Daniel's pay but red tape made it difficult to do the right thing. It all came down to two people being able to do what a huge bank and a large company couldn't do -- admit a mistake has occurred and fix it. From the passage we can infer that   _  .
the bank could solve the problem soon and easily with the red tape some large organizations usually have troublesome official rules Daniel didn't know the error until he contacted the author it was easy for a company to have a mistake which had occurred fixed
Question: I went on line to check if my pay was in my bank account . To my amazement I discovered that not only had I been paid, but a company I'd never worked for had also paid me! I know I would have been beside myself   if my own salary was not in my account, so I tried to get the money back to the right person. Easier said than done. The bank couldn't help as it "wasn't a bank problem." The human-resource department at the company that paid me was unable to help as I didn't have enough details. I rang the bank again. Thankfully I had a sympathetic call operator who gave me a name, so I again rang the company "Daniel" worked for. I expected the bank would contact me to arrange to take the money from my account and repay Daniel. I heard nothing for a month and the money remained in my account when Daniel called, explaining he'd tried to get back his money but had been unsuccessful as neither the bank nor his company felt it was their error. He had rung to ask if I could speak to the bank, but after chatting for a few minutes we realized we could probably fix this problem ourselves. We decided I would take the money from my account and he would pick it up from me. Due to my busy job I was unable to meet Daniel personally but he left me a lovely bottle of wine in exchange for what was rightfully his. I never had any intention of keeping Daniel's pay but red tape made it difficult to do the right thing. It all came down to two people being able to do what a huge bank and a large company couldn't do -- admit a mistake has occurred and fix it. From the passage we can infer that   _  .
A. the bank could solve the problem soon and easily with the red tape
B. some large organizations usually have troublesome official rules
C. Daniel didn't know the error until he contacted the author
D. it was easy for a company to have a mistake which had occurred fixed
Answer: