Critical Reasoning

In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco, and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants. Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions about these job applicants?
(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.

(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.

(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.

(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco

(E) None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or Radeco

OA is A
I chose C, it is already said that each offered jobs to half of these applicants, so if A were true then the one half of qualified applicants could have got a job in both these companies.So it still does not satisfy the conclusion.
By any change are some of the answer keys for critical reasoning wrong. Is there a post which states the key corrections,if any?

IS it D?

I would have choosen C, because is the only way to guarantee that every aplicant would receive a job offer.

Option a leaves the door opened to the chance that one aplicant can receive 2 job offers, that duplicated offer will reduce an offer to another applicant.

ya...C wud be correct...mean due tt duplicacy, some applicant wud not get the job either of the companies...

I also picked C. But after reading the question again ... it says "..., and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants". Which does not necessarily mean that the group of people each company offered a job to are mutually exclusive. All it says is that half of the applicants were offered jobs. So an applicant could have received an offer from both Evco and Radeco.

I'm with you guys. C is the best here