Critical Reasoning

Television programming experts maintain that with each 1% increase in the prime-time ratings of a television station there is a 3.5% increase in the number of people who watch its evening news program. However, in the last ten years at Channel NTR, there was only one year of extremely high prime-time ratings and during that year, fewer people than ever watched Channel NTR’s evening news program.

Which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn from the statements above?

(A) When a news program has good ratings, the channel as a whole will have good ratings.
Too far from argument

(B) The programming experts neglected to consider daytime news programs.
"Daytime news" is not relevant

(C) The year of high ratings at NTR was a result of two hit shows which were subsequently canceled because of contractual problems.
Beyond the scope

(D) The ten-year period in question is not representative of normal viewing patterns.
Chosen by me

(E) Prime-time ratings are not the only factor affecting how many people watch an evening news program.
OA

The passage provides information as a rule to predict that Y-increase will be =3.5% when X-increase=1%. Then, introduced by "However", passage states exceptional case that happend with Channel NTR during 10 years period. So, according to the inference strategy - do not assume too much and base on premises - I chose D. Obviously, E - follows logically, but IMO only as an assumption, not as an inference. After all, IMO D- 1 step high to infer, E - little higher, moreover seems to be assumption. Thus, D might be closer to be correct.
Is there some mistake I made during my resoning ?[/b]