The wording of AC (B) is no bueno. Because in a world where Krall is employed at Avrue opens up an entirely new and different set (Set 2) of candidates that are all fully qualified. Meanwhile, Delacruz is the most productive member in his set (Set 1) of fully qualified candidates that haven't been hired yet. Essentially, it comes down to how the sufficient condition of "no candidates being hired" has not been triggered, therefore the rule cannot respond.

This is my understanding: the sentence of "Hence, Azalea bushes can be made to flourish in clay soil" is the conclusion for our argument, but the actual assumptions we make must be made in the premises because that is what supports our argument. That's how I was able to eliminate E at least, because the conversation needs to be about WHY the conclusion of roses flourishing is supported, and assumptions we make for the clay. Then I used POE to find the answer. A is wrong because it mentions "always." D is AN assumption, but not relevant to our argument. And C just restates our premise. Therefore, the answer must be B.

I see what you're saying - the help is still happening even if it's minuscule. However, B is a much more attractive, and ideal, answer choice because it directly follows the chain that he made (from the crisis being overcome to time being required outside of the classroom to study).

Same here!