PT124 · S1 · Q10 Public health experts

This mentions a campaign's minimal impact among those who already love vegetables, which is irrelevant, as the focus is on those who don’t find vegetables appetizing.

This suggests making vegetables appetizing might reduce their nutritional value, presenting a potential backfire and weakening the argument for the plan's effectiveness at making people healthier.

This compares eating habits based on a few appetizing vegetables vs. disliking most, offering unclear relevance to whether new methods will increase vegetable consumption for those who find them unappealing. It's also weird that you could easily be someone who both dislikes most vegetables but finds a few of them appetizing, so these groups are highly overlapping.

We could reword this as, "If we can't ensure that every single person who presently dislikes the taste of certain veggies will learn to find those veggies appetizing, then the campaign will not be effective". Saying "the only way to do X is to do Y" is akin to saying "if you don't do Y, then X won't happen". This answer might seem tempting because it kind of sounds like "the only way to achieve the Goal is to do this Plan", but that doesn't actually mean the Plan will work. If we say, "the only way to win this game is to score a 90 yard touchdown on this last play", that doesn't mean it's at all likely that we'll score a 90 yd TD on the last play. Meanwhile (D) is saying, "If we do the Plan, we will achieve the Goal".