I struggled too, but I think the thought that should cross our minds is, "if he's being accused of something bad, why hasn't his approval rating gone down from 52% given the accusations?" This, I presume, would prompt us to look at A as the answer: his approval rating hasn't gone down because no one's opinion was changed... the same people hated him before and after the accusations were made.

I think the issue is that C focuses on "consume as much of other foods that are high in fat as do those who have not," meaning if you cut out red meat, you're eating the "other foods" ONLY. Those who haven't cut out red meat are eating the "other foods" PLUS the "red meat," which altogether would suggest that those that haven't cut out red meat should have higher consumption rates of fat. This doesn't align with the stimulus, which says that those who cut out red meat consume more fat.

D, however, makes sense because it is being "replaced." So if the value of these replacement foods is higher, it'll be higher for those who cut out red meat because it is taking the place of the red meat's lower value of fat.