Q14 - Consumer advocate: Tropical oils are high in

[Aquamarine]

I can't find out why B is wrong because I thought consumer advocate agrees with B whereas Nutritionist doesn't. So i thought B could be the answer.
But the correct answer is E.

Can you tell me what's the difference between B and E and why B is wrong and E is right?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

When I approach these "ID the Disagreement" questions, after reading both paragraphs, I go back to the 1st person's paragraph and pick which idea/sentence the 2nd person actually disagrees with.

Does the nutritionist disagree with the CA's first sentence? No.
Does the nutritionist disagree with the CA's second sentence? No.

The nutritionist disagrees with the CA's last sentence, because the nutritionist says that "focusing attention on tropical oils would be counterproductive and NOT lead to people making the more substantial dietary changes necessary".

So the point at issue is whether
intensive publicity about the disadvantage of tropical oils will result in significant dietary changes / diminishing of heart disease risk" or whether intensive publicity about the disadvantage of tropical oils will be counterproductive

By picking a sentence (and even physically bracketing it off), I force myself to come back to that specific language when I'm torn between answer choices.

(A) This is dealing with CA's first sentence. No disagreement there.

(B) This is a claim about "intensive publicity campaigns" in general. None of the CA's three sentences are about "intensive publicity campaigns" in general. Only the CA's last sentence relates at all, and it is specifically about an intense campaign about tropical oils. The nutritionist's rebuttal is specifically about an intense campaign about tropical oils. So neither person is weighing in on the subject matter of the effectiveness of intensive publicity campaigns in general. This answer is tempting because we can infer from the CA's statements that he assumes that (B) is true. But we can't infer from the N's statements that he assumes that (B) is false. N might also believe that intensive campaigns can be effective, but just be pointing out that we should have an intensive campaign about meat/poultry/dairy rather than about tropical oils.

(C) The CA never discussed meat, so there's no textual support to pick this answer.

(D) This is CA's second sentence. No disagreement there.

(E) This is the closest paraphrase we get to the CA's final sentence.

The phrase "good public-health strategy" definitely comes out of nowhere, but we can plug in phrases we DID hear and use LSAT common sense to make this work.

"likely to diminish many people's risk of heart disease" = good public health strategy

"counterproductive" = bad public health strategy

Hope this helps.