Great question. The pundit is arguing that attending university is not helpful for getting a corporate jobs because the attributes corporations value most are already possessed by many high school students. Notice that he is not saying that corporations only hire students that possess these attributes as (C) suggests, only that these are the attributes corporations value most leaving open the possibility that one can get a job even without one or more of these attributes. Whereas (B) correctly identifies the flaw in the argument - it overlooks the possibility that employers require an attribute that can only be acquired by attending a university, so even though many high school graduates have these nice to have/ valued attributes, they still lack a necessary attribute to get a corporate jobs - perhaps all corporate jobs require a college degree and value x y z attributes in all their applicants. Since the argument fails to consider that a university degree is helpful for getting a corporate job because it is the only means of acquiring a necessary attribute, it incorrectly concludes that is it not helpful for many students.