The explanation of why D is wrong is super hypocritical. It's saying just because the trends could be reversed, it doesn't mean that they will be. But, you could say the same for B. Just because the animals could be raised on grass instead doesn't mean that they will be. D is better understood as wrong if you focus on the fact that it would be reversing just one factor.

I would like to try this!

@agilegoose Same.

What made this hard for me was understanding that the second paragraph was still talking about the activists of the 1930s and the 1940s. I assumed the second paragraph went back to talking about between 1930 and 1960. But I guess 1930s and 1940s is a part of that group? I also think that maybe the persuasive evidence mentioned in the first paragraph is referenced in the first sentence of the second.

Did anyone else focus way too much on the difference between "knowledge of one another's needs and problems" and "understanding the needs and problems of others"? Why are they equated? Eventually, I ignored it because all of the answer choices equated them, but I would definitely think there's a difference between knowledge and understanding.