Some people believe that advertising is socially pernicious-it changes consumers' preferences, thereby manipulating p...

Hi Regarding answer-choice D, LSATMAX provides two explanations for its elimination. The first, stated in my own words: something with which "nothing is wrong" is not the same as this very thing is "positive," because "positive" is narrower descriptive range in that it does not encompass the "neutral" state that is included within the range of the description "nothing is wrong." In other words, "positive" and "nothing wrong" are not equivalent because the latter could be positive, but it could also be neutral, whereas the former is strictly positive and therefore cannot be neutral! The second explanation for eliminating D is that answer-choice D is conditional in nature. However, I feel that this second explanation is problematic, because if D had stated, "if advertising changes consumers' preferences, it generally does so without harm" as opposed to what it does say, which is "if advertising changes consumers' preferences, it generally does so in a positive way," it would've been correct. My reasoning is that ultimately the point of the analogy is the implication/consequence of changing people's preferences, which, according to the stimulus, is not bad (or it is not pernicious, or there's nothing with it). But it does not say "without harm," it says "in a positive way," which therefore leads us right back into the first explanation! In retrospect, I disagree that that the conditional nature of answer-choice D, in itself, is enough to eliminate D; it is the fact that the consequent of "changing the preferences" of the stimulus, not pernicious, does not equate to "positive," which takes us back into the first explanation! Am I wrong? Is the conditional nature of D is sufficient to have it eliminated? Thank you