Note: Another difficulty in this question has to do with the fact that we have to first do an MSS question on Sara's statements before we can do the Disagree question. See, Sara never explicitly disagrees with Glen on (E). She does implicitly disagree. It's hard to see her implicit disagreement because of the way the question is formatted. Let me reformat the question.
Sara: Some people (named Glen) would say that law's primary role should be to create virtuous citizens. But such a role would encourage government to decide which modes of life are truly virtuous; that would be more dangerous than government's being overprotective of individuals' rights.
Can you draw the MSS-style-inference from the stimulus above? Or in other words, can you see where this argument is heading? Or in other words, what's Sara's conclusion that she hasn't stated? These three questions are fishing for same thing.
The reformatted stimulus is very formulaic. We often see arguments begin with "some people say X..." and 9/10 they end up being "X is wrong" is the conclusion. It's no different here.
Sara does not think that the law's primary role should be to create virtuous citizens. There's the implicit conclusion. There's the point of disagreement.
This question is similar to Question 21 in the same section in so far as the disagreement is implicit and we first have to an MSS question.