A report states that vitamin E present in fresh fruits and vegetables is beneficial for the human body, but vitamin E taken in capsule form does not have the same effect. In this course of action question, which of the following steps should logically be recommended regarding capsule vitamin E and the intake of natural sources such as fruits and vegetables?

Introduction / Context:
This question deals with health information and the proper response through courses of action. The statement explains that vitamin E from fresh fruits and vegetables is beneficial to the human body, but vitamin E in capsule form does not provide the same benefit. Two courses of action are proposed: banning sales of capsule vitamin E and encouraging people to take fresh fruits and vegetables to meet their vitamin E requirement. We must decide which of these recommendations logically follows from the given information and reflects a balanced public health response.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Vitamin E is essential for the human body.
• Vitamin E from fresh fruits and vegetables is beneficial.
• Vitamin E in capsule form does not have the same effect as vitamin E from fresh foods.
• Course of action I: Sales of capsule vitamin E should be banned.
• Course of action II: People should be encouraged to take fresh fruits and vegetables to meet the body requirement of vitamin E.
• We assume capsules may still be prescribed in special medical cases, but the statement does not discuss safety issues.

Concept / Approach:
In course of action reasoning, we test whether a proposed action is directly linked to the facts and whether it is proportionate and realistic. If a product is simply less effective, it does not automatically mean that it must be banned. Banning a product is justified when it is unsafe, seriously harmful, or fraudulent. Encouraging better alternatives is nearly always appropriate when there is clear evidence of superior benefit. Therefore, we see if the statement supports a ban or mainly suggests promoting natural sources.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine the key information. Natural vitamin E from fruits and vegetables works better than capsule vitamin E, which does not have the same beneficial effect.Step 2: Evaluate course of action II first. Encouraging people to consume fresh fruits and vegetables directly addresses the information that these are more beneficial sources. It is a positive, realistic health measure based on the statement.Step 3: Evaluate course of action I. Banning capsule vitamin E is an extreme step. The statement does not say that capsules are harmful, unsafe, or fraudulent; it only says that they do not provide the same benefit as natural sources.Step 4: Consider proportionality. Lack of equal benefit compared to natural foods is not enough to justify a ban. Many supplements are optional and may help specific individuals under medical supervision.Step 5: Conclude that only encouraging natural sources, that is course of action II, logically follows, while banning capsules does not.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public health agencies frequently issue advisories to increase consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables when studies show that whole foods work better than isolated supplements. However, banning a supplement usually requires strong evidence of danger, adulteration, or serious misuse, none of which is mentioned here. Thus, based on the information given, the most reasonable action is to promote natural vitamin E sources rather than prohibit capsules altogether.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option a (Only I follows) is wrong because a ban is not justified by the statement and would be an over reaction.
• Option c (Neither I nor II follows) is wrong because course II clearly follows as a positive health recommendation.
• Option d (Both I and II follow) is wrong as it unnecessarily includes a harsh measure that is not logically supported.
• Option e (None of these) is wrong since course II is valid.

Common Pitfalls:
A typical mistake is to assume that if one option is proven less effective, it must be banned. Reasoning questions require distinguishing between less effective and harmful. Another pitfall is ignoring the wording not the same effect and interpreting it as dangerous. Careful reading shows that the right logical response is to guide people toward the more beneficial alternative, not to impose an unjustified prohibition.

Final Answer:
Only course of action II follows.