The correct answer is (D).
(D) Paradox
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
When a question asks you to "resolve" a discrepancy, there's a paradox in need of explanation. Look for two seemingly contradictory ideas in the stimulus, and find an answer that reconciles the apparent conflict between them.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
The first claim is that people have tried to reduce their fat intake by cutting down on red meat. However, on average, those who cut back on red meat actually consumed more fat than those who didn't cut back.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
The central mystery is how people could cut a fatty food from their diets yet still consume more fat. The correct answer will explain where that extra fat comes from. The most likely explanation is that these people replaced the red meat with another high-fat food.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(D) provides a perfect explanation. Those who reduced the amount of red meat in their diets ate more of other foods that are even higher in fat. That would explain why they're now worse off than the people who stuck with red meat.
(A) makes an Irrelevant Comparison. The paradox involves a comparison between the fat intakes of those who cut back on red meat and those who didn't. It has nothing to do with how many people made the dietary change or when they did it.
(B) doesn't resolve the paradox because the reason why people made the decision to cut back on red meat (some may have done it for health reasons, others for financial ones) doesn't explain why those who reduced their red meat consumption are now eating more fat.
(C) is a 180. If the people who cut back on red meat are eating just as much of other fatty foods as everyone else, then where that extra fat is coming from is even more curious.
(E) is irrelevant to the paradox. Even if red meat isn't as fatty as previously thought, it still doesn't explain why the people who eat less red meat consume more fat overall.
