想不通的一题，求解

sheikebeibei

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 drops fed to humans.
E. Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.
feifei逻辑的解释：E is the best answer. 喂养牲畜消耗的粮食为人们创造更多的食物。（题目内容是：有观点认为食物缺乏是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。但作者认为该观点忽视了农产品中有相当大一部分是用来喂家畜的。在美国几乎有一半土地的粮食是为了养家畜。1磅肉要用去21磅廉价的谷物。因此，食物缺乏不仅是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多。）根据题目要求，我们只须反驳养家畜对粮食紧缺造成的影响。选项A中即使人们爱吃肉只会引起更多的粮食消耗，不能反驳作者; B并不能充分改变人们的取向；C强词夺理；D重复事实。

我觉得这解释不对啊，结论是食物缺乏不仅是因为土地资源有限而人口数量却不断增多，所以要选择赞同而不是反对养家畜对粮食紧缺造成的影响，feifei的解释好像反了吧
我是菜鸟，请nn们指点，勿拍砖，谢过

sheikebeibei

补充：如果用排除法，那e就是答案了，可是按照上面的逻辑我觉得有点不对