After waiting for a while, now ill try to answer the question as option D is the original sentence.
In the late 2000s, financial experts said that the global financial crisis led directly to the Great Recession and that they anticipated income inequality to reach an eighty-year high as lower wages and unemployment became more prevalent.
In the late 2000s, financial experts said that the GFC led directly to GR and that they anticipated income inequality to reach an 80-yr high as lower wages and unemployment became more prevalent.
I think the sentence implying FE said that GFC led to GR and (FE said; as understood) that they (FE) anticipated income inequality to reach high as,
reason 1 - lower wages (phrase) and
reason 2 - unemployment became more prevalent (clause).
Here also, parallelism is not maintained. So, original sentence is suspicious because of weird structure but let's hold it.
A. Recession
and anticipated income inequality to reach an eighty-year high
with lower wages and unemployment that become more prevalent - FE said something and FE anticipated income inequality with lower wages and unemployment that become more prevalent. This option changes the meaning as compared to original sentence by not citing two reasons and violating parallelism. Become is incorrectly used here.
B. Recession and
anticipate income inequality to became more prevalent as lower wages and unemployment reach an eighty-year high - Incorrect verb tense and misplaced modifier changes the meaning of original sentence.
C. Recession and the
y anticipate income inequality to reach an eighty-year high with
the prevalence of lower wages and unemployment - Incorrect verb tense and misplaced modifier changes the meaning of original sentence.
D. Recession and that they anticipated income inequality to reach an eighty-year high as lower wages and unemployment became more prevalent - Hold it as said above.
E. Recession, and that they anticipated a
n eighty-year high to reach income inequality as lower wages and unemployment would become more prevalent - Incorrect due to misplaced modifier of anticipation,, anticipation of 80-yr high to reach income inequality...unnecessary wordy and 80-yr high,,,what? can 80-yr high reach income inequality?? of course not.
I did not like the option D but it is better than other four options.
Imo. D
EMPOWERgmatVerbal,
(out of curiosity) Is it possible to have such questions in real GMAT test? Where can we see such weird structure in sentence (as option D) to ease our ears?