Limited access to expertise, along with the lack of easily available

My issue is when ther is a lack of easy availability, then things should be pretty difficult to spread. How can we, so, combine two antithetical elements?.

(A) - Limited access to expertise... has led to... Have led is incorrect.
(B) - Why would a lack of expertise + a lack of easily available pesticides (the chemicals) lead to an uncontrolled spread of chemicals. This doesn't make sense and there is no other explanation in this sentence as to why there would be that uncontrolled spread in chemicals, therefore this one is wrong too.
(C) - "...along with the lack in" should be "...along with the lack of" - wrong.
(D) - This is correct. This sentence states that the limited access to expertise along with easily available pesticides would result in consequences for the environment (availability of chemicals + limited access to experitise that would let us know those pesticides would lead to consequences for the environment="hitherto unknown consequences for the environment").
(E) - "uncontrollably spreading chemicals" is the only thing that sets this one apart from the correct (D). Uncontrollably spreading doesn't convey the same meaning as uncontrolled and doesn't support the first part of the sentence.

I'm going to go with D here.

-Ryan

I will go with D.
(A)has subject verb error.Singular subject limited access should follow singular verb has led not have led
(B)Meaning is nonsensical because limited access to expertise & lack of easily available pesticides can not lead to the uncontrolled spread of chemical that is not possible.
(C)has modifier problem.Modifier which modifies available pesticides instead of limited access and it also has idiom problem. the use of lack in is wrong.here lack of is the correct idiom
(D)Its the correct answer.here the singular subject limited access correctly followed singular verb has led,idiom lack of is correctly used & the sentence`s meaning makes sense
(E)The uncontrollably spreading chemicals does not make sense properly.

If find my post helpful plz press kudos

Does D not change the meaning of the original sentence?

kaiyuan28935749 There is no such thing as the "original meaning" of the sentence. Our job is to look at all five choices to determine the intended meaning, and then select the answer choice that best expresses that meaning. The meaning expressed in A is illogical, as daagh has pointed out, so we absolutely must select an answer with a different meaning! Remember that A has no monopoly on correctness. Like any other choice, it is wrong 4/5 of the time, and that's not just in terms of grammar. The meaning can be wrong, too!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.