The argument doesn’t concern whether it’s a good idea to have beehives. So other benefits of honey are irrelevant.

The argument doesn’t confuse the statement about pollination. If bees aren’t present, pollination can’t happen. What the argument confuses is whether beehives are necessary for the presence of bees.

The argument doesn’t use the statement about fruits and vegetables as part of how it reaches the conclusion. So there’s no confusion about that statement.

Although we know beehives ensure bees, that doesn’t mean they’re necessary for bees. So we can’t infer from the lack of beehives that there won’t be excellent pollination. There can still be excellent pollination, because there can still be bees present.

There is no causal claim concerning beehives and excellent pollination. The author assumes that lack of beehives implies lack of excellent pollination, but that isn’t a causal claim.