Here, a simpler way of presenting the topic would be more appreciated. I.e Explaining same way but with different tone.
Option A - INCORRECT
If we take a keen look at other technological innovations leading to the underlined sentence, there is presence of the article 'THE'. This article 'THE' emphasizes what is being talked about but in the case of the underlined sentence, it is absence. It means there is a structural disconnect which means the author is not emphatic about the point of interest. Thus, it is short of the validity we need.
Option B - INCORRECT
In the original statement, we must understand that the underlined statement is a process that results from technological innovations but the response of the author in this option twisted it to mean that "blast furnaces" is the subject and it's what the writer was talking about and not the process as a whole. What we care about is the whole process as example of what technology has brought and not the use of blast furnace.
Option C - INCORRECT
Here, the sentence construction is the same as above. Smelting pig iron with coke in blast furnaces is a whole statement on its own (adverbial clause). The statement in this option has further broken the statement into parts. It's clearly not needed.
Option D - CORRECT
This seems to be a bit better than other options. The article "THE" that precedes the other examples in the original statement is present here and the sentences have been broken into parts. It takes the whole sentence as a subject which is exactly what we intend to get. It is the most accurate option
Option E - INCORRECT
There is a change in meaning here because "being"- a past participle tense shows an action that's been carried out in the past. The explanation here doesn't follow the part other examples in the chapter followed.
