I settled on CQuote:
A) The entrepreneurs credited the website that helped the owners of small businesses find suppliers
to keep their new enterprise viable
when cash flow was neither ample nor steady.
The meaning here is illogical. The entrepreneurs credited the website to keep their enterprise viable when cash flow was...? No. It doesn't make sense to credit the website in the past to keep their enterprises viable (after they have been credited). It is more logical to credit someone with something they did in the past. But to credit someone to do something in the future? That doesn't seem logical to me. It would be more logical if the credit that the entrepreneurs ascribed to the website is for something that occurred in the past. To add to this, the sentence continues and further modifies the intention to keep their new enterprises viable
when cash was? I hope there is a better option that makes sense.
Quote:
B) The entrepreneurs credited the website that helped the owners of small businesses find suppliers toward keeping their new enterprise viable at
a time when cash flow was not ample or steady.
The use of toward keeping their enterprises viable implies that the website was credited for something in the future. But when you read on, all you see is toward keeping their enterprise viable a time when cash flow was... Illogical. But maybe someone will say that this sentence is merely expressing something that happened in the past. The entrepreneurs credited the website(in the past) toward keeping their enterprise viable when cash flow was... So the entrepreneurs wanted the website to keep their enterprise viable and the keeping of their enterprise viable is something that was intended to happen later on although it is now in the past. Fine. Then and again, there is a subtle problem in B.
at a time when is redundant. Eliminate B for the redundancy.
Quote:
C) The entrepreneurs
credited the
website that helped the owners of small businesses find suppliers
with keeping their new enterprise viable
when cash flow was neither ample
nor steady.
This is perfect. The meaning is much more logical. The entrepreneurs credited the website with keeping their new enterprise viable when cash flow was neither ample nor steady. Per the meaning, the crediting took place in the past. It is clear that the crediting occurred after the website kept their new enterprise viable when the enterprise had cash flow problems. It is likely that the website somehow promoted the enterprise when cash flow(of the enterprise) was neither ample
nor steady. The meaning of this sentence is clear. Keep C and eliminate A.
Quote:
D) The entrepreneurs credited the website that helped the owners of small businesses find suppliers
to keeping their new enterprise viable
when cash flow was neither ample nor steady.
Credited the website to keeping? No. It works better when the sentence reads
credited the website with keeping. Eliminate D and keep C.
Quote:
E) The entrepreneurs credited the website that helped the owners of small businesses find suppliers
with keeping their new enterprise viable when
there was not ample or steady cash flow.The idiom is used correctly in E. However, my only bone of contention with E is the use of the passive voice in the latter part of the sentence. The more direct form
when cash flow was neither ample nor steady is better compared to the passive form
when there was not ample or steady cash flow. Between C and E, C gets the nod from me.