In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

What must be true in order for the stated premises to justify the conclusion that each person who applied for jobs at both Evco and Radeco was offered at least one job? The argument is that Evco offered jobs to 50% of the people who applied for jobs at both companies, and so did Radeco; and since ​50% + 50% = 100%, it follows that 100% of the applicants were each offered at least one job. But this reasoning fails if the two 50%s might have overlapped by including some of the same people. For example, suppose there were four applicants total, of whom one was offered a job only at Evco, one was offered a job only at Radeco, one was offered a job at each company, and one received no job offer. Then even though Evco offered jobs to 50% (two out of four) of the applicants, and so did Radeco, only 75% (three out of four) of the applicants were offered jobs. Thus, the argument requires the assumption that no one was offered a job at both companies.

1. The argument is only about whether the applicants were offered jobs, not about how well qualified they were.
2. If true, this would entail the argument's conclusion. However, the conclusion could also be true even if some applicants rejected the jobs they were offered.
3. Correct. As explained above, the argument requires the assumption that there was no overlap between the people offered jobs at Evco and those offered jobs at Radeco.
4. If anything, this would weaken the argument by eliminating the possibility that some or all of the applicants were offered jobs at companies other than Evco and Radeco.
5. The argument is only about whether the applicants were offered jobs, not about where they had previously worked.

The correct answer is C.