Question: I completely understand why C is correct, but could someone clarify why my reasoning for B was wrong?

Reading the question, I believed one of the assumptions to be that it was the banning of lead paint that led to the decrease in childhood lead poisoning. I thought that if this is indeed an assumption, then the conclusion that eliminaing lead paint from remaining homes will eradciate lead poisoning, is also based on the same assumption made in the premise. Therefore AC (B) seemed correct, as the argument relies on an assumption (removing lead paint leads to decrease in lead poisoning) that is tantamount to assuming the conclusion (removing lead paint will eradicate lead poisoning) is true. I realize this is wrong but would really appreciate someone explaining why to me:)

In this example, which one is the premise and which one is the conclusion?:

"Some managers claim that the best way to incentivize employees to work harder is to intimidate them. But, employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work. Therefore, there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder."

I know the first sentence is context, but am unsure which sentence is the conclusion. It is written that "she wants us to believe that employees who are intimidated cannot concentrate on their work" which makes it sound that that is the conclusion. However I feel it makes more sense if "there is probably a better way to incentivize employees to work harder" is the conclusion.