+1 kudos to the posts have correct POE

_________________

IMO D

(A) in the provisions to reduce the risk what many analysts had predicted previously, and rather to limit .Not parallel
(B) in the provisions to reduce the risk what many analysts predicted previously, rather to limit .Incorrect
(C) in the provisions’ ability to reduce the risk what many analysts were predicting previously, and rather to limit.Wrong tense and parallel structure.
(D)that the provisions will reduce the risk that many analysts had predicted previously and limit. Correct.
(E) that the provisions will reduce the risk that was predicted previously by many and limiting. Wrong verb tense.

Correct me if I am wrong.

+1 for D

Meaning:
Can the health care scheme extend the assurance in the provisions to do something? OR
Can the health care scheme extend the assurance that the provisions will do something?

I assume the second part makes more sense. Hence, it boils down to D and E. Option E changes the meaning

Another decision point might be had predicted/was predicted/were predicted/predicted

We have two events here Prediction and launch. Both happen in the past, first the 'prediction' happens and then the 'launch'. Hence, past perfect 'had predicted' makes sense.

Kindly, correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!
_________________

+1 for D .the use of that seems idiomatic after the word assurance.. Will reduce and limit are parallel.

Posted from my mobile device

I will vouch for B to be correct

D uses had predicted and previously together which is kind of redundant

A is wrong because of same reason as D

E incorrect parallelism

C-wrong apostrophe usage

I could be wrong but that's my take. Correct me with detail explanation for D

Posted from my mobile device

Official Explanation:

Answer - D
Concepts tested: Parallelism, Tenses

This is the sequence of events:
Event 1: Analysts predicted that there would be a risk
Event 2: The new healthcare scheme is launched. It extends the assurance that the provisions will reduce the aforementioned risk and limit the losses faced by insurers.

To bring out this sequence, we need to use the past perfect tense to refer to event 1 and the simple past tense to refer to event 2. This is correct only in option D.

The core sentence is “The newly launched scheme extends the assurance that the provisions will (1) reduce the risk that many had predicted previously and instead (2) limit the losses insurers incur…” This parallelism is missing in all options except D.

A - What’ can be used only as an interrogative pronoun or adjective to ask questions. It cannot be used in place of a relative pronoun such as ‘that’ or ‘which’. In this sentence, we need the relative pronoun ‘that’.
B – Same as A. ‘Assurance in X to Y’ is unidiomatic.
C – Same as A.
D – This option is parallel as described above.
E – Same as A.
_________________

We need the word “that” in the answer choice.

So A,B,C are out.

Between D and E.

D maintains parallelism will reduce and limit.

Posted from my mobile device

Experts,

will you pls suggest why option B is wrong.

1. In terms of verb tense, all clause are in present simple so past perfect doesn't look mandatory out here. Rather simple past should also serve the purpose.

2. Option B and D do have different meaning. Option B says it will not reduce the risk rather limit the losses. It is inline with main sentence.
WHereas option D suggest it will do both. SO there is a change in meaning.

SO in my opinion option B looks more appropriate. Pls suggest.

Assurance that is correct Usage...

Examples

Mary gave her assurance that the plan would succeed.
Do you have any assurance that the work will be done well?
She was helped by his assurance that she would cope.
He gave me his assurance that he would help

Further Past Perfect Tense ( had + past participle ) usage is correct here as 2 actions are described here (In the past) as already mentioned by aragonn hope this helps....
_________________