The Asian Development Bank has approved a loan of 285 million United States dollars to finance a project for constructing coal ports to be managed by Paradip Port Trust and Madras Port Trust. In this course of action question, which of the following proposed responses should India adopt regarding the use of such international financial assistance for developing similar ports at other locations?

Introduction / Context:
This question is about national level decision making and the use of international financial assistance. The Asian Development Bank has approved a substantial loan to finance construction of coal ports at Paradip and Madras. Two possible courses of action are suggested: that India should use financial assistance from other international organisations to develop such ports in other places, or that India should not seek such assistance at all. Our task is to choose which course logically follows from the statement and represents a balanced and rational policy direction.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• A loan of 285 million United States dollars has been approved by the Asian Development Bank.
• The loan is for constructing coal ports for Paradip Port Trust and Madras Port Trust.
• Coal ports are important infrastructure for trade, energy, and industry.
• Course of action I: India should use financial assistance from other international financial organisations to develop such ports in other places.
• Course of action II: India should not seek such financial assistance from international financial agencies.

Concept / Approach:
When judging courses of action, we check whether they align with the benefits and implications of the statement. The statement implicitly shows that India is already using international assistance from the Asian Development Bank to create needed infrastructure. From this, we can infer whether similar assistance from other agencies might be useful elsewhere. However, an extreme proposal to completely avoid such assistance contradicts the very practice reflected in the statement. We must avoid actions that unnecessarily block beneficial support without clear reasons in the statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Interpret the statement. India has accepted a sizeable loan from an international agency for coal port development. This reflects a willingness to use external financial support for infrastructure where needed.Step 2: Evaluate course of action I. If building coal ports with external assistance at two locations is beneficial, then using similar financial help from other reputable agencies to develop needed ports at additional locations is a logical extension, subject to usual project evaluation.Step 3: Evaluate course of action II. Saying that India should not seek such assistance at all is inconsistent with the fact that India has already accepted such a loan. The statement gives no indication of negative consequences from this assistance.Step 4: Check alignment with infrastructure needs. For a developing economy, obtaining long term loans on suitable terms can accelerate infrastructure growth. Course I reflects that rational approach. Course II rejects it without any supporting reason.Step 5: Conclude that only course of action I logically follows from the given statement.

Verification / Alternative check:
If an action has already been taken and is portrayed neutrally or positively, it is reasonable to treat similar future actions as acceptable, provided the same conditions hold. Here, nothing in the statement suggests that taking a loan from the Asian Development Bank created problems. Therefore, extending this practice to other ports with other agencies is a reasonable course. In contrast, a sudden blanket refusal of international assistance would be inconsistent and unsupported by the information given.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option b (Only course of action II follows) is wrong because the statement supports the use of international assistance, not the rejection of it.
• Option c (Neither I nor II follows) is wrong because course I clearly aligns with the logic of the situation.
• Option d (Both I and II follow) is self contradictory, since the two courses directly oppose each other.
• Option e (None of these) is wrong because a specific valid course, I, clearly follows.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates sometimes think any dependence on external funding is automatically negative. Logical reasoning questions do not ask for emotional or political preferences, but only for consistency with the given data. Another mistake is to think that if one route is used once, the opposite policy must now be adopted to avoid over dependence. However, the statement contains no evidence of any problem with the existing loan, so a blanket rejection is not justified.

Final Answer:
Only course of action I follows.