Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Yet without analyses of...

I just can't see how negating choice D makes the argument fall apart. Saying "if we cannot known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future, then we cannot possibly set aside funds because we do not know which exhibits will be most valuable to science in the future," is like saying, "if I cannot know what career my child wants to pursue in the future, then I cannot contribute to a college fund because I do not know what college my child wants to attend." Well, you can set aside a college fund still in anticipation that you're child's going to college in the future. Just like they could have set aside funds, anticipating that some exhibits will be valuable to science in the future—just like the egg was. That's how I thought about it. Is this analogy too off-point? What am I missing?