This is the best answer. (A) supports Emeagwali’s prediction by showing that scientists have only recently become aware of the many math principles underlying natural processes. Because they have only recently become aware of these principles, we have at least some evidence that they are more likely to pay attention to these principles now and in the future compared to the past. This provides support to the prediction that scientists will “increasingly” look to nature.

This doesn’t connect technological problems to solutions that might be found in nature. This simply indicates that some variables affecting the weather haven’t been discovered. But would looking to the weather or other aspects of nature help in solving technical problems? (B) doesn’t help answer this question.

This compares the success of designs for natural phenomena that are affected by human activities vs. those that aren’t affected by human activity. But it doesn’t help connect technological problems to solutions found in nature. What should lead us to think computer scientists will increasingly look to nature? (C) doesn’t help answer this question.

This doesn’t connect technological problems to solutions that might be found in nature. More importantly, it doesn’t tell us why computer scientists generally will be more likely to turn to nature (as opposed to Emeagwali himself).

This doesn’t connect technological problems to solutions that might be found in nature. Are the math principles described in (E) found in nature? Will they help for future technololgy? (E) doesn’t answer these questions.