This is the conclusion. Coupled with an unstated premise (aka assumption) that we don’t know the goal of an action when we predict it, we can conclude that successful predictions of behavior don’t guarantee understanding that behavior.

The author doesn’t address this relationship. We don’t know that predicting human behavior requires anything. We only know that the purpose of physical science is prediction, and that understanding human behavior requires knowing its goal.

The author isn’t concerned with events; she’s addressing human action. Also, if we sub out “event” with “human action” in (B), the argument doesn’t support that statement either.

Context. This is information that sets the stage for the argument. Nothing else in the argument supports (D) being true, so it can’t be a conclusion.

The author doesn’t mention psychological states or methods used to predict human behavior.