The argument makes a comparative claim that the shoe factory is a better location than the courthouse. By providing evidence for the courthouse being the better location, doesn't this evidence work against the shoe factory being better? The stimulus says there is no evidence the courthouse is better, in other words, there is no evidence against the shoe factory being the better location. Thus, (A) asserting lack of evidence against the shoe factory is proof the shoe factory is the better location. I narrowed down to (A) and (B) and unlike other LSAT questions, I cannot determine a meaningful difference following JY's explanation. I agree (B) is correct but I disagree (A) is wrong.

Obviously sufficiency/necessity confusion is an issue here but I still do not understand how answer choice B has the same meaning as the classic sufficiency/necessity confusion. Seems to be a different flaw entirely.