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.

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:

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:

Common Pitfalls:
Turning comparative statements into absolute bans.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.