Critical Reasoning

10. Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.
Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?
(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption of the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

E?

A. peoples preference out of scope

B. out of scope

C. negate=> if the limits were finite it doesnt affect the conclusion

D. contradicts a premise: given that 1/2 of agricultural acreage devoted to livestock=>more than 1/2 cannot be deovted to humans

E. if the acreage devoted to livetsock is shifted in favour of humans, it would yield more food for human=> food scarcity is a function of not only population growth, limited resources but also of "usage" of agricultural land. supports the conclusion

E is right ans

I am leaning more towards E, but I'm not sure about it.