I got this question wrong because I misread answer choice B) which is why I'm going to offer a solution here as "punishment" for getting it incorrect when I should not have!
First and foremost, it's a resolve the paradox question which means the premises will yield an unexpected or surprising result in the conclusion.
The core of this argument is:
Grizzly bears uproot and eat lilies' bulbs and annually destroy a large percentage of the lilies ----> grizzly bears' feeding habits promote the survival of lilies
This is the point where you should be thinking, "wtf, that makes NO sense - if they eat and destroy a large percentage of the lilies, then HOW the HELL could grizzly bears promote the SURVIVAL of lilies?"
Well, the point of this exercise is to resolve that situation and explain HOW the above scenario could be a plausible one.
The correct answer is B). Iceberg lilies actually NEED to be disturbed (grizzly bears eating/destroying them) because they produce so many offspring that when they're not disturbed they deplete the resources necessary for their own survival. Here we see the idea of how grizzly bears can actually promote the survival -- they preclude the quick depletion of necessary resources that the lilies require for survival.
Wrong AC
A) irrelevant; doesn't help resolve the paradox, it just makes a qualification to it
C) just says there are more lilies that are safe from the attack of grizzly bears than there are lilies that are produced in fields where grizzly bears forage -- does not resolve the paradox
D) so what if they're more prevalent in those regions where grizzly bears are populated? How does that explain Grizzly bears "promoting" the lilies' survival?
E) this explains why lilies are essential to the bears' survival, but what about the other way around??