I is implicit in the norm prescribed in the sentence. This is why checking is being advised. Again, what would the banks check? Obviously, what the clients reveal. Banks would assume the revelation to be true. Hence I is not implicit. However , II is vague. If cross-checking is what the speaker has in mind II would become implicit.
None focuses on the real reason of unemployability.
Only Course of action I can follow as public awareness programme should be expanded immediately.
Both courses of action are suitable for pursuing.
Courses of action I would be a extreme step. Courses of action II is not within the Government's preview. Courses of action III is advisable when there is retrenchment on such a large scale.
To avoid such in mishappening, deploying police constables can be of help. Also, if people go in groups, then such incidents be avoid.
Going for I is an extreme action and should be resorted to only when the students fail to behave themselves after repeated warnings like the one given in II.
Action I and III will create another problems action II is the effective way to reduce the problem.
We should remember that the culprits are mere students. Going for II instead of I would make sense only if it is a repeated act.
Both statements can help the young pepole to acquire their responsibility.
I follows as a measure of caution. But II won't solve the problem: poor electrical fittings would wreak havoc wherever the market be.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.