Both A and D appear true.
A is true - because the argument talks about raising funds to preserve irreplacable exhibits.
B is not true because the argument does not talk about if the exhibits can be used for multiple studies or not.
C is wrong because there's no reference to the study of "genetic relationships" studies.
D is true because it presupposes and applies that just like eggs are valuable in establishing a relationship between decline of birds of pray and pesticides, we can predict and presuppose the exhibits that would be useful for studies in the future and can be preserved now.
E is false - it opposes the basis of contention that with greater funds exhibits can be preserved.
Between A and D, I'd go with D because there's a slight hint that the author stresses on the preservation of not the "irreplacable" exhibits but the ones that would be most valuable to science in the future.
Who says elephants can't dance?