Resolve-the-paradox. Two facts are given as true and seem to clash, so the credited answer must let both be true at once by supplying a hidden distinction, without contradicting either fact. List the facts plainly. Fact one: discarded (spoiled) produce rose about 40 percent. Fact two: freshness complaints fell about 40 percent. The surface tension is that more spoilage usually signals worse produce, which should produce more complaints, not fewer.
The key is that the two figures measure different produce. Write-offs count produce that is removed from the supply, while complaints come only from produce that actually reaches customers on the shelf. (A) breaks the link between the two: with more frequent deliveries, staff can afford to pull and throw out any declining item early, before it ever reaches the sales floor. That single mechanism raises the discard count (Fact one) and simultaneously improves what shoppers see, lowering complaints (Fact two). It is consistent with both facts and dissolves the apparent conflict, so it is correct.
(B) pushes the wrong way: produce arriving nearer its peak would spoil sooner on the shelf, which deepens the puzzle rather than resolving it. (C) explains only the complaint drop (a loyalty program) and is silent on the write-offs, so it covers just one side. (E) explains only the write-off rise (cheaper produce makes discarding easier) and is silent on complaints, the mirror-image one-sided error. (D) is the most tempting trap because it sounds like a real-world cause, but it resolves the tension by implying the complaint drop is just a bookkeeping change, which disputes a fact the stem states as true. A resolution may add information; it may not deny the data. Only (A) keeps both facts intact while explaining how they coexist.