anushridiThe important difference is that C is only making a
relative statement. Biodiversity makes it
less likely for humans to contract Lyme disease than would otherwise be the case. This fits the pattern we might see with a weaken question. If someone argues that X will happen because of Y, we can weaken the argument by providing a new fact that makes Y seem unlikely to happen. That doesn't mean that X won't happen at all, or even that Y won't happen. It just weakens the idea that X will happen.
It's kind of the same thing here. There are many reasons that we could still get Lyme disease. If there's high biodiversity in an area, maybe white-footed mice are still common and so there are a lot of ticks contracting Lyme disease from them. Or maybe there are so many ticks that transmission is fairly common in the area. Or maybe some other species that thrives under high diversity is able to pass the disease to ticks in this area. Maybe there are people who seek out ticks and put themselves at risk! I could go on like this for quite some time. But C doesn't tell us that Lyme will be rare, just that it will be
less common than it would otherwise be, so the assertion isn't really saying that much--exactly what we want from an inference answer!