Indigenous tribes living near the Amazon forests are cutting down trees to meet their basic needs, which is severely affecting the ecological balance in that region. In this course of action logical reasoning question, consider whether the tribes should be forcibly shifted to urban areas or allowed to continue cutting trees as they are not doing it for commercial gain. Which of the following courses of action should logically follow?

Introduction / Context:
This question focuses on environmental protection and the rights of indigenous tribes. The statement explains that tribes living near the Amazon forests cut down trees to cover their basic needs. However, this activity is severely affecting the ecological balance of the area. Two extreme courses of action are suggested: forcibly shifting all tribes to urban areas or allowing them to continue cutting trees as they are not engaged in commercial exploitation. Our task is to decide whether either of these courses or both should logically follow from the statement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Indigenous tribes live near Amazon forests.
• They cut down trees to meet basic needs such as shelter, fuel, and small scale subsistence.
• This tree cutting is seriously disturbing ecological balance in the region.
• Course of action I: All such tribes should be forced to shift to urban areas.
• Course of action II: The tribes should be allowed to continue cutting trees, since they do so only for basic needs and not for commercial purposes.
• We assume ecological balance in the Amazon region is globally important and that tribal rights also matter.

Concept / Approach:
In course of action reasoning, we check whether proposed steps are reasonable, balanced, and directly related to solving the problem. Extreme measures that violate basic human rights or ignore the main issue are usually rejected. Here the core problem is ecological damage due to tree cutting. An effective course of action should try to protect the environment while respecting the needs of indigenous communities. We evaluate whether forced relocation or complete permission without regulation meets this balanced requirement.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine course of action I. Forcing all tribes to shift from their ancestral lands to urban areas would severely disrupt their culture, livelihood, and identity. The statement does not suggest that such a harsh step is necessary or acceptable.Step 2: Check if course I addresses the problem sensibly. While shifting people out might reduce tree cutting locally, it is not a humane or practical solution and creates new social problems.Step 3: Examine course of action II. Allowing them to continue cutting trees without restriction simply because their purpose is basic need does not solve the ecological imbalance mentioned in the statement.Step 4: Note that ecological impact depends on the total volume of tree cutting, not only on whether it is commercial or subsistence. Even non commercial use can be unsustainable if population and pressure have risen.Step 5: Therefore neither forcing urban relocation nor granting full permission is the correct logical response. A balanced course might involve controlled use, alternative resources, or community based conservation, but such options are not provided among the two courses.

Verification / Alternative check:
Real world approaches to such issues aim for sustainable use rather than total ban or unlimited permission. Governments and environmental agencies often work with tribes to promote alternative livelihoods, regulated harvesting, and conservation programmes. Since neither of the given courses reflects this balanced approach, we logically conclude that neither course I nor course II follows. Both are extreme and do not reasonably derive from the statement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option a (Only course of action I follows) is wrong because forced relocation violates rights and is not suggested by the statement as a justified or necessary step.
• Option b (Only course of action II follows) is wrong because permitting continued tree cutting unchanged does not address the ecological imbalance.
• Option c (Either I or II follows) is wrong as both are unacceptable extremes, and logical reasoning does not force us to choose between two clearly unsuitable options.
• Option d (Both I and II follow) is impossible because the two courses contradict each other.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake is to assume that in such questions one of the given extreme courses must be selected, even if both look unreasonable. The correct reasoning is that sometimes neither course is acceptable, especially when both conflict with core values or fail to address the problem in a balanced way. Another pitfall is focusing only on the fact that tribes cut trees for basic needs and ignoring the explicit statement that ecological balance is severely affected.

Final Answer:
Neither course of action I nor course of action II follows.