Look at it this way, if you were covered in giant ferocious man-eating caterpillars which caused you to bleed all over, and then mozzies came along and bit the crap through you, would you attribute that to your blood, or the presence of the caterpillars? On the other hand, assuming that the blood has no signalling capabilities whatsoever towards wasps, if some even more oversized frenzied wasps come along and ate the caterpillars, then it was the presence of the caterpillars that caused the wasps to come, and not the blood. As I hope you can see from my incredibly crap metaphor which I now realise doesn't actually have any real purpose, basically what I tried to say is that it could go either way at the moment as we're not sure whether the jasmonic acid actually has any signalling capabilities or not towards wasps, and I think you're looking at your own experiment with the bias that it does, which isn't necessarily the case. If it doesn't and the wasps come anyway, then clearly that's just because of the presence of the caterpillars, but your experiment isn't able to make this distinction.
EDIT: On re-reading your post, your main misconception is that you're basically saying that if A caused B, and A or B caused C, then B causes C, and this will prove the hypothesis. This might seem quite logical as if it was B that causes C in the second statement, then all's good. Then if it was A that causes C, well A causes B anyway, and apparently, all's still good. However they're asking specifically if the odour attracted the wasps, and so the second situation I've stated isn't a proof of the hypothesis they're asking you to prove as that by no means shows that B causes C (only that A causes C), or in other words, that the odour attracts the wasps.