Statement — Vitamins and minerals in vegetables and fruits are beneficial for the human body; medicines do not have the same effect. Courses of Action — I. Encourage people to take fresh fruits and vegetables to meet the body’s vitamin and mineral needs. II. Ban the sale of vitamin and mineral medicines.
-
Aif only I follows
-
Bif only II follows
-
Cif either I or II follows
-
Dif neither I nor II follows
-
Eif both I and II follow
Answer
Correct Answer: if only I follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The statement favors whole-food sources of micronutrients over pills, implying diet-first guidance. A logical response promotes healthy consumption rather than prohibition of alternatives that some individuals medically need.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Premise: fruits/vegetables provide vitamins/minerals beneficially.
- COA I: encourage dietary intake.
- COA II: ban supplement medicines.
Concept / Approach:COA I directly aligns with the statement: education, access, affordability, and food programs that increase produce consumption. COA II overreaches; supplements may be necessary for deficiencies or clinical needs. The premise does not justify an outright ban, only a preference for dietary sources.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Promote diet-based micronutrient sufficiency (I).2) Reject bans (II) that could harm patients with specific deficiencies.Verification / Alternative check:A policy can emphasize whole foods while regulating supplement claims and quality; banning is unnecessary and risky.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Both: confuses preference with prohibition.Neither: ignores the clear diet-first guidance.Common Pitfalls:Turning comparative statements into absolute bans.
Final Answer:Only I follows.