Throughout the passage, the author critiques the historians' "extremism," rejecting the idea that all scientific beliefs are subjective and subject to falsification while also acknowledging that it is important to understand the social processes which influence science.
In their conclusion, the author notes that you can accept all of their critiques without accepting the historians' argument that scientific beliefs are never influenced by natural reality.
In their final statement, the author suggests that historians should focus on demonstrating how scientific doctrines which fit reality work through the social processes of the study of science to eventually become generally accepted.
In this way, the author concludes their passage by offering a prescription, or an authoritative recommendation, for what science historians should be doing. This is restated by answer choice (A), making it the correct answer.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect because, while the author may demonstrate conflicts inherent in the historians' arguments, they conclude the passage by offering a way forward which mitigates these conflicts.
Answer choice (C) is incorrect because the author does not make a prediction anywhere in the passage.
Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the author concedes an argument in the third paragraph, not the conclusion. They concede that science is not simply a reflection of natural reality and is influenced by social processes as the historians suggest.
Answer choice (E) is incorrect for the same reasons as answer choice (D). Additionally, the author anticipates an objection in paragraph 2 where they note that the rejection of the traditional belief in the objectivity of science is implausible, despite the fact that it may be popular right now.
Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
