Critical Reasoning

Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.

OA after few replies

IMO B

Is it C.
More than any logic here I found all other options supporting the argument in one way or the other. Only C seems a little off track. Also,
The argument is that people don't hire teenagers because of the minimum wage level. C states that people in fact do hire extra help during holidays , it could be teenagers

IMO is B and C is out of scope.
Basically B says that students unemployment rate will increase.

IMO - C

Because it points out that employers require extra help only during the holiday and warm weather season.

This option highlights a new cause of the unemployment, "the extra help is needed only in a few months of the year."

Option C

is it C?

IMO B
OA?

Cannot decide between C and B. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please