Educating girls quite possibly outputs a higher rate of return than any other investment   available in the developing world. Women's education may be an unusual field for economists, but raising women's contribution to development is actually as much an economic as a social problem. And economics, with its emphasis on motivation, provides an explanation for why so many girls can't receive education. Parents in low-income countries fail to invest in their daughters because they do not expect them to make an economic contribution to the family: girls grow up only to marry into somebody else's family and bear children. Girls are thus seen as less valuable than boys and are kept at home to do housework while their brothers are sent to school-- _ , trapping women in a vicious circle   of neglect. An educated mother, on the other hand, has greater earning abilities outside the home and faces an entirely different set of choices. She is likely to have fewer but healthier children and can insist on the development of all her children, ensuring that her daughters are given a fair chance. The education of her daughters then makes it much more likely that the next generation of girls, as well as of boys, will be educated and healthy. The vicious circle is thus transformed into a good circle. Few will disagree with it that educating women has great social benefits. But it has enormous economic advantages as well. Most obviously, there is the direct effect of education on the wages of female workers. Wages rise by 10 to 20 per cent for each additional year of schooling. Such big returns are impressive by the standard of other available investments, but they are just the beginning. Educating women also has a significant influence on health practices, including family planning. The author argues that educating girls in developing countries is   _  .
troublesome rewarding labor-saving expensive
Question: Educating girls quite possibly outputs a higher rate of return than any other investment   available in the developing world. Women's education may be an unusual field for economists, but raising women's contribution to development is actually as much an economic as a social problem. And economics, with its emphasis on motivation, provides an explanation for why so many girls can't receive education. Parents in low-income countries fail to invest in their daughters because they do not expect them to make an economic contribution to the family: girls grow up only to marry into somebody else's family and bear children. Girls are thus seen as less valuable than boys and are kept at home to do housework while their brothers are sent to school-- _ , trapping women in a vicious circle   of neglect. An educated mother, on the other hand, has greater earning abilities outside the home and faces an entirely different set of choices. She is likely to have fewer but healthier children and can insist on the development of all her children, ensuring that her daughters are given a fair chance. The education of her daughters then makes it much more likely that the next generation of girls, as well as of boys, will be educated and healthy. The vicious circle is thus transformed into a good circle. Few will disagree with it that educating women has great social benefits. But it has enormous economic advantages as well. Most obviously, there is the direct effect of education on the wages of female workers. Wages rise by 10 to 20 per cent for each additional year of schooling. Such big returns are impressive by the standard of other available investments, but they are just the beginning. Educating women also has a significant influence on health practices, including family planning. The author argues that educating girls in developing countries is   _  .
A. troublesome
B. rewarding
C. labor-saving
D. expensive
Answer: