The claim that learning computer programming is a sure way to a bright future is analogous to the contention, popular a few years ago, that if one wanted a successful career, one should study lay. Now, of course, there are more law students graduating than the market can absorb.
The point of the analogy above is that
(A) lawyers are making increasing use of computers in their work.
(B) computer programmers will increasingly need the services of lawyers.
(C) there will soon be more jobs for lawyers than there are now.
(D) there will soon be more programming students graduating than there are jobs for them.
(E) graduating law students and programming students will soon be competing with each other for the same jobs.
What the author of the passage says that, a few years ago, the popular view was that, in order to have a successful career, one should study law. The result is that there are more law graduates now than the market can absorb.
He compares the currently popular view that learning computer programming will lead one to a bright carrer to this popular view regarding law education a few years ago.
Obviously, what the author implies by the analogy is that this is likely to lead to the result that, quite soon, there will be more programming graduates than the market can absorb.
It is (D) which states this, and is the answer.
You can easily notice that none of the other choices is relevant to the analogy sought to be drawn by the author between the craze for computer education now and a similar craze for law education a few years back.