What threw me off was the fact that the argument says that industrialists simplify/oversimplify things and then proceeds to use an example that basically shows the exact opposite- industrialists overcomplicating things by using dams, drains, etc. when good topsoil is all it takes.

I get how B is right but I also don't think it entirely destroys the argument. By negating it, you say that it IS much easier now to domesticate wild animals, but "easier" is relative to the previous difficulty, and doesn't necessarily mean that it is now not difficult. Building a rocket could have been difficult in the past, and even if some new development makes it much easier, that doesn't mean that it is now easy to build a rocket. I could just be overanalyzing this tho

Are there consistent question types you keep getting wrong? That can determine a lot with how you might adjust your approach