First of all, for clarity, here are the text of the statements: Professor A: The aid industry should begin to limit its efforts to spending on primary schools, providing medicines and other basic supplies for health care, and to a few key agriculture initiatives.
Professor B: Much education work has been ineffective. A village or town with poor schooling may be better off getting a new road than a teacher. Once local farmers can transport produce to market they will be wiling to pay for a school --- and to make the schools succeed.

So, Professor A says, essentially --- right now we are spending aid money on a whole bunch of stuff --- let's cut everything else out, and focus just on three absolutely essential areas:
(a) primary education
(b) basic healthcare
(c) maybe an occasional agricultural project now and again
Professor B disagrees, saying essentially --- I don't think "primary education" should be one of our limited focuses --- if we focus on infrastructure (presumably one of the many current aid expenditures that A wants to cut), then communities will be empowered to help themselves and money for education will arise from the community itself.
With what would Professor A disagree?
(A) The aid industry should focus less on the areas of health and agriculture than it now does.
Right now, the aid money focuses on a whole bunch of things, and Professor A is advocating limiting it to a top three --- health & agriculture are in her top 3, so she is for increasing the aid to them, and decreasing it to other things. So, A would disagree with this, but we have zero evidence that B has any opinion on it.
(B) The aid industry should focus more on the primary education than it now does.
This is exactly what Professor A is advocating, so this can't be something with which she disagrees.
(C) The aid industry should focus its spending less on the primary education than it now does.
This directly contradicts what Professor A advocates, so she definitely would disagree with it, and it's the very substance of Professor B's disagreement with A.
(D) Projects in health and agriculture are more likely to be successful if they are not paid for the aid industry.
Well, Professor A advocates giving more aid money to these, so presumably she thinks aid money will help those things be successful, which means should would disagree with this statement. BUT, we have no evidence that Professor B has taken any stand on this issue.
(E) Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for the aid industry.
Professor A is advocating spending more aid money on primary education, so she must think that that more aid money is a good thing for education. She agrees with this statement.
(F) Projects in education are more likely to be successful if they are paid for by the local people.
Professor A doesn't appear to consider this option ---she talks about giving more aid money to primary education, but that is not necessarily exclusive with thinking that local money would also be helpful and possibly even more helpful. It's certainly not clear that Professor A would disagree with this. We really have no direct evidence whether she would agree or disagree with this.
So, Professor A would clearly disagree with (A), (C), and (D) --- for (A) and (D), we have areas where Professor A would disagree but we really have no clue what Professor B's stance would be. Therefore, the best answer for 43A is (C): on that one, Professor A would disagree, and Professor B would support it.
Given that Professor A disagrees with (C), what would Professor B say? Well, Professor B is all about empowering the local community to they can pay for the education themselves --- presumably, she would like to see less money focused on education per se, and more on infrastructure, with the long-term view that eventually that will empower the community to support its own education. The statement that most closely echos those sentiments are (F), which is the best answer for 43B.
Does that make sense?