It sounds like that you have already determined that the premises give you the logical chain:

Book published -> Prof N recommends Skiff to dean -> Skiff will be promoted

In the conclusion we are given a new logical chain:

Skiff's book is as important and as well written as Skiff claims -> Skiff will be promoted

My immediate answer choice prediction was to link the conditional chain to the beginning of the premises logical chain:

Skiff's book is as important and as well written as Skiff claims -> book published

So, why is that prediction not the verbatim answer? Why does it miss the "and well written" part?

Because the answer takes one of the conditions for Skiff to be promoted as a sufficient condition on its own for Skiff's book to be published and subsequently for him to be promoted...

if the book is as important as he claims -> book published (-> Prof N recommends Skiff to the dean -> Skiff will be promoted)

So what happens when Skiff's book is important AND well written? Will the book be published? Heck yeah!

if the book is as important as he claims AND well written -> book published (-> Prof N recommends Skiff to the dean -> Skiff will be promoted)

I think this question turns on the very last statement in the conclusion: "thereby saving money". I didn't believe that the cost of the generators should be considered in the electric bills or even that the plant would have to install them (the reason I thought AC C was a bizarre answer).

But AC C does introduce the idea of additional costs, which effects total money saved. The costs of install not outweigh what is saved in electrical bills is necessary for the plant to "thereby save money." In contrast, if the install costs did outweigh the electric bill savings, the conclusion would not follow since they would not save money.

I chose C. Clear now that it is wrong because the generalization about Macaulay (old popular writer) being forgotten is being applied to a different set (current day popular writers). This contrasts with the part to whole flaw in the stimulus. For C to be correct, it would need to say something like "Thus all popular writers are likely to be forgotten.", which would allow Macaulay to be included in that set of popular writers.

In contrast, I now read A as being correct because "no government has been able to..." is a subset of "any government". Although JY said in the video "no government has been..." only means those that have tried, I still find that a bit of a reach. I instead think of the former as a subset of any government because "any government" could include new/hypothetical future governments, which would broaden the set from those that exist/have existed to all that will. Either way, still arrive at the same answer.